Irresponsible Open Carry Activism Jeopardizes The RKBA

[zincwarrior]

Agreed. Plus a protest of 500 people with holsters on their belt sans guns to me is a much better statement that the usual "wackjob with a rifle near the school Won't someone think of the childrenz!!!" article those seem to generate.

 

[gc70]

Part of the problem is that those of us who are unsure of the merits of open carry can't seem to have an intelligent conversation about the idea without being accused of being turncoats to the 2nd Amendment.

Part of that is our own fault. I read the entire thread twice and the OP a couple of more times. Although I agreed with the argument in the OP, something was bothering me; I finally realized it was this language:

The best way to do that 99% of the time is Concealed Carry. Even if people do choose to Open Carry ...

This is a value judgement that is unnecessary to persuasively making the points in the OP. And saying 'you're 99% wrong, but let's talk' probably does not foster a productive dialogue.

 

[zukiphile]

EDIT TO ADD - The point of posting on this issue isn't to add heat on an issue of political tactics, but to explore the reasoning behind the positions. It seems likely that people who disagree on this work from different experiences. That doesn't seem like a compelling reason to take any part of the discussion personally.

that decision also unequivocally affirmed the legality of open carry.

That is exactly correct - it affirmed an existing right under Ohio code, a statutory and constitutional right widely ignored by Ohio PDs.

As far as the invocation of Rosa Parks goes: different times, different causes, different social, political and legal climates.

Frank, no one disputes that there are differences between Parks and OC activists. Since they are cited for their similarities, those are pertinent to an analogy. There was public resistence to each, and each was raised in public awareness beyond the unreasonable objections of opponents by people who asserted their rights.

Each movement had undesirable elements. Each had people sympathetic to the cause who didn't need the expansion of the right. (I don't carry, and so far as I know Alan Gura doesn't. It is inconvenient.)

If you think it distinguishes the analogy beyond any use that this issue isn't a prominant feature of the agenda at church, we disagree on that point.

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.

Frank, with due respect, I don't believe you have correctly measured the politics of the period in Ohio. Affirmation of the existing Ohio OC right was a fortuitous consequence of a push for concealed carry reform, but recognition of OC itself would tend to relieve the political pressure for concealed carry.

Instead, Klein, the concealed carry law and the activism that seeks recognition by PDs who are not always quick to observe robustly the full range of a person's rights are all consequences of the same push to liberalisation.

I have no reason to doubt that OC has had set-backs in some places, but directly attributing those set-backs to exercise of the right, rather than to people opposed to the right itself, is problemmatic.

How has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates?

In Ohio, we passed a concealed carry law.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As far as the invocation of Rosa Parks goes: different times, different causes, different social, political and legal climates.

Frank, no one disputes that there are differences between Parks and OC activists. Since they are cited for their similarities, those are pertinent to an analogy. There was public resistence to each, and each was raised in public awareness beyond the unreasonable objections of opponents by people who asserted their rights...

But the differences are very material to how and why certain tactics worked for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. As I outlined, with regard to the Civil Rights Movement it mattered a great deal who and where the opposition was and who and where the support was. The scope and depth of the support for racial equality was very material to making the tactics of the Movement work. The active involvement of whites was very material to making the tactics of the Movement work.

...In Ohio, we passed a concealed carry law.

And in California, even unloaded open carry was outlawed. Tactics must be chosen to fit the realities of the situation.

 

[sigcurious]

I am on the fence about OC activism(Not OC itself, if it's legal and responsibly done I see no inherent problems with it). In most cases it seems garner negative attention and sends the wrong message.

However, I am curious as to what people think about a specific situation where I live. Where I live, Nevada, OC is legal, and and there are state preemptions on firearms law, to the effect that only the state legislature may make laws regarding firearms.

Now the conundrum. Police stations are public buildings, with no law against OC in them. In general, the police in Las Vegas have accepted OC, until you try to OC into a police station. There are a handful of people who do OC activism by OC'ing while they have business at the police stations. Good, bad, ugly?

Personally, I think this is an extra grey area. There have been successful campaigns in getting other parts of the local governments to adhere to the law. DMVs and other public buildings/property now properly allow open carry after letter writing and other forms of political action. However, Las Vegas Metro PD never got on board.

 

[Jim March]

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.

Ah. I suspect you're referring to events in the 2008 presidential race.

As ugly as you think that was, it was a very successful effort.

Here's what happened:

One guy in a NorthEastern state, I *think* New Hampster, OCed while somewhere in the general vicinity of one of the campaigns. He wasn't being very overt or confrontational. The national news picked it up - including the part about how the guy wasn't breaking any laws, wasn't arrested and didn't appear violent.

This was one of the few times the national news even mentioned the fact that gun carry was generally legal. To people inside the worst of the "occupied zones" (New York, Illinois, etc.) just learning that legal open carry was a "thing" elsewhere was news - regardless of whether some bigwig running for office was nearby.

Other OC activists realized this was a chance to show people in enemy territory that legal gun carry existed - part of the "mindshare wars" we ALL should be concerned about.

By the time one of the campaigns hit Phoenix AZ we had a very well-dressed black dude with an AR15 across his back, several blocks from an Obama event (with no plans to get closer, and Phoenix PD fully briefed ahead of time). Again, this made the national news and this time it was a double win because not only did news that THAT was legal get out, at least one of the mainstream news outlets was caught red-handed cropping to photo to block the fact that the gent in question was of the melanin-enhanced variety as the news tried to paint this as "redneck white supremacists strike again".

The overall message that *successfully* made it to the heavy gun control zones is that heavy gun control is not the only option, that free states with gun rights exist and flourish. You may consider the delivery mechanism ugly but...hey, we don't have a whole lot of options remaining. Even Faux News gets guns screwed up a lot (coughBILL-Ochoke) and the rest are horrendous.

---

As to reactions in Tucson AZ: somebody I know and spend time with told me something funny a few days ago: a couple of times now they were some distance away from me and overheard the exact same comment about me: "oh yeah, this is Arizona...".

 

[Jim March]

There have been successful campaigns in getting other parts of the local governments to adhere to the law. DMVs and other public buildings/property now properly allow open carry after letter writing and other forms of political action. However, Las Vegas Metro PD never got on board.

Well heaven help us if we try to get law enforcement to understand that laws apply to them too.

The basic Nevada law on gov't buildings is a good one: if the building in question wants to disarm you, they have to do metal detectors, guards and lockers. This limits building disarmament to only those buildings where there's a real risk, AND prevents them from forcing you to mix with criminals who are packing and who declined to voluntarily check a weapon or leave it in the car.

 

[aarondhgraham]

A 51st state I never heard about?

New Hampster?,,,

Another coffee spitting moment.

Aarond

.

 

[sigcurious]

Oddly enough, that is often the law the police cite, or that other public buildings used to cite. The only problem is that that law specifies concealed carry.

There are only 2 general location laws in Nevada, no firearms in the legislative building, or where the legislature is conducting business. Also no firearms at schools or child care facilities.(Public Universities/Colleges you can technically get permission to CC, but good luck in getting the the sign off on that)

Other than that all the laws are related to concealed carry only. Technically you can OC into the non-secure areas of an airport here. Although with the fed/local jurisdictional cross over that happens at airports, that seems like a really really good way to wind up spending money on a lawyer lol.

 

[Rob Pincus]

1.The Rosa Parks comparison is a Non-Starter. These so called "activists" are doing something legal is a jack-ass-ist way just to get attention. If Rosa Parks had sat in the back of the bus and started Hooting and Hollering about how she was doing it, she just have gotten kicked off the bus for being a whacko. When the "activists" start OCing in Times Square or on the Capitol Mall, they can start referencing Rosa Parks.

2.

Now. I can tell you for a FACT that California's anti-gunners soon after that first tried to pass an open-carry ban in 2004-2005 timeframe when I was still a California lobbyist for CCRKBA - and BEFORE there were any open-unload-carry protests in California. How do I know? Well not only did I fight those early bills, Irwin Nowick personally told me that they feared Ohio-style protests. First and only time I've ever felt the least bit tempted to strangle somebody on the other side.

So...if you point to our guys in California being in the wrong without knowing the whole story, then sorry, I know you're speaking from ignorance. Worse, you ignore the Ohio experience which is both recent history and an important turning point...if you don't know about than then you're not as serious an activist in this issue as you make out.

Looks like you just made my point... before the OC Activism, the politicians were NOT able to get OC outlawed in CA.

What about MS ? My understanding is that the AG's office specifically closed the door on OC because of the question caused by Activism earlier this year.

I will admit ignorance on the OH issue, but your reference to it doesn't seem to counter my point about the confrontational side of OC being bad for us. You're talking about organized rallies in support of changing law. What law are these jerks trying to change by goading police into confrontation. Apples & Oranges.

I'm an activist for the positive image of gun owners in the public.

*****

-RJP

 

[Wagonman]

You mean like the Illinois Nazis back in 1977?


I hate Illinois Nazis

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.

What police violence are you referring to?

 

[hermannr]

There is a difference between Rosa Park and what this guy did in Medford OR (grant, I did not like the way he did it, but it was legal. Even if the weapon had been full auto MP5 (with tax stamp), it would have still been legal in OR.

What Rosa Parks did was actually illegal by the laws of that day, and in that place. That law was overturned in the courts, and it needed to be overturned.

What this guy was doing was teasing for a confrontation, as good as the officer was at his job, he was wrong in initiating the contact in the first place. He should never have accommodated these guys.

Did these guys help the OC movement? No. They were defiantly butt heads. but could they legally do what they did? Yes, so I really do not thing of it as anything worse than any other stupid thing some young people do. I have OC'd since 1970 and have never had a confrontation, or even been asked for my CPL or ID. Going out of your way to get that kind of attention is juvenile.

The reason there is OC is well represented in "in re Brickley". Well worth the short read. When I was much younger (1950's) I was introduced to that attitude, it stuck...I OC unless it is cold enough for a heavy coat. Never had a problem, even in banks, whether in 1970, or now.

I think a lot of people look at things like this through their local laws...don't do it. Find out what the law is where it happened. Then think about it.

 

[HeadHunter]

The public doesn't want to see your weapon any more than they want to see your gun. They may ignore either but that doesn't mean they want to see them.

OC is no more going to "desensitize" them than listening to the yapping dog next door is going to "desensitize" me to its barking. What the yapping has done is, in fact, to make me hate the thing more. As a result, I call the police now every time it wakes me up, which I never used to do. Clearly, the public and politicians in CA reacted in a similar vein.

 

[jcsturgeon]

In my opinion open carrying as a way of advocating your second amendment rights is the same as carrying around a bullhorn to advocate your first amendment rights. It's mostly obnoxious and does very little real good for the cause.

Open carrying a MP5 clone, a .22 no less, that offers very little in the way of tactical advantage or self defense is obviously just a stunt for attention. That is not a legitimate reason to carry a weapon. Sure, you have the right to, but as in my example, it's obnoxious. When people pull stunts like this, it isn't bringing (positive) attention to the cause, it's bringing attention to themselves. That's the last thing we need.

 

[Rich_73]

SAID BY Itc444:
It is not the question of OC vs CC. The question is how you carry.

If you are acting like the Cock of the Walk, constantly touching or otherwise calling attention to the piece, you probably should not carry.

However, is you carry discreetly in a natural manner then you will not encounter a problem

Well said ! ! ! ! ! ! I carry OC, for a couple reasons. 1. It is my right (and I dont flaunt it/draw additional attention to myself). 2. I haven't purchased a IWB holster for my full size 1911 (Taurus). 3. I have no other smaller handgun to carry (accepting donations )

Rich_73

 

[zukiphile]

1.The Rosa Parks comparison is a Non-Starter. These so called "activists" are doing something legal is a jack-ass-ist way just to get attention. If Rosa Parks had sat in the back of the bus and started Hooting and Hollering about how she was doing it, she just have gotten kicked off the bus for being a whacko. When the "activists" start OCing in Times Square or on the Capitol Mall, they can start referencing Rosa Parks.

I don't think that carrying a firearm is fairly equated to "Hooting and Hollering". Denigrating the practice of a right isn't consistent with a defense of the right.

Parks pushed for recognition of rights arguably already enshrined in the COTUS. Ohio open carriers pushed for recognition of a right already present in Ohio code. Whether one is arrested in Canton or Times Square isn't material to whether one is arrested for a behavior.

Tension and confrontation can result in a change in police behavior for the better (assuming one is correct). The Parks and Ohio episodes illustrate that.

As to OCers with abrasive personalities, let's note that you don't have to want the advocate over for dinner with the family in order to recognise the legitimacy of his activity.

OC is no more going to "desensitize" them than listening to the yapping dog next door is going to "desensitize" me to its barking.

How many people call 911 to complain about a PO open carrying? I would expect very few. It is customary.

 

[Nickel Plated]

To preface: I am all for open carry and feel it should be a legal right in all parts of the country, mostly because it eliminates the whole printing issue while CCing. However I am also of the opinion that just because you have a right to do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do. If you're out in the woods or the country or just a relatively empty city street, by all means OC. But if you're going into a downtown bank at rush hour, cover up. Just slip your shirt over it. It's not "forfeiting you rights" or "giving in to the antis" it's a simple common courtesy. Otherwise don't be surprised when people treat you like you're an a-hole.

With that out of the way, here's the issue I have with many OC "activists". They claim that they do what they do to "normalize" the idea of people owning firearms and carrying them. However that's exactly where their ideals and their actions don't quite work together.
You don't normalize the carrying of a firearm by doing it in a way you normally wouldn't (like slinging an MP5 over your shoulder and walking through town with it for no reason while filming every conversation you get into). Just like you don't normalize the idea of same-sex marriage by dressing in a rainbow leotard and organizing a makeout orgy infront of your local church.
Things are not normalized by taking them and dragging them out to a stupid extreme.
If people want to normalize open carry then just take the pistol you normally conceal and wear it on the outside of your clothes. Done.
"But that's not activism because noone will even notice my bland little Glock!! What's the point?"
Well there you go, mission accomplished. Noone notices it because it's already normal where you live. So leave the issue alone and stop posturing like a pompous ass.

 

[Hal]

Now. I can tell you for a FACT that California's anti-gunners soon after that first tried to pass an open-carry ban in 2004-2005 timeframe when I was still a California lobbyist for CCRKBA - and BEFORE there were any open-unload-carry protests in California

I'm a bit confused here by this.
I recall open carry was banned by the Mulford Act in 1967.

 

[sigcurious]

It was not fully banned, until recently you could still open carry while unloaded.

 

[jimbob86]

It was not fully banned, until recently you could still open carry while unloaded.

That was so they (California) could legally say that they were not stomping all over Californian's 2A rights- they could still bear arms, just not loaded ones. Now they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

So, which is better in the long run? A right you have in name only, but are afraid to excercise? .......or a right that is very obviously being stomped on, ripe for yet another 2A court victory?

All we need is a deep pocket Californian to bring suit.