Open Carry Counter Rally For Gun Rights

[Tom Servo]

I'm afraid that carrying shotguns and rifles into public places will become synonymous with open carry.

I'm afraid it is at this point. The responsible open carriers can thank the Chipotle bandits for that.

Unfortunately, the actions of a few gave the antis a hook to hang everyone on. Everyone who open carries right now runs the risk of being photographed and misrepresented.

At this point, we should focus on what we should have been doing all along: finding real and articulate ways of educating the general public on gun rights.

 

[barnbwt]

As victims of gun violence spoke about how universal background checks might have saved a loved one’s life, pro-gun supporters jeered and yelled remarks Saturday in Morrisville’s Williamson Park....

Let's be fair, guys; this statement could be used by any reporter doing a hatchet-job on any pro-gun demonstration adjacent an anti-gun demonstration anywhere. Actually this statement is used routinely for that; we've known for a while that we don't have "the moral high ground" because victims are more sympathetic than people who wish to be let alone.* The only solution to avoid the above statement is stand quietly aside while the anti's rail unquestioned (thus rendering moot the counter-protest), or to avoid confronting them at all in public (which also means disbanding all protest events when the anti's show up to counter-protest)

I suppose the argument could be made that public rallies are a stupid waste of our effort, but let's be up front about that, and not pretend that "there's a right way" that won't raise slander and mischaracterization by biased reporters or libelous anti's. That said, there is certainly a "wrong way" to protest that makes that hatchet-job easier (black clothing with angry-font text: bad idea. Dark sunglasses at a protest event: dehumanizes your side. Getting up close with the other side of the picket line: monumentally stupid idea you should have disciplined leadership working to avoid. Letting the media get up close: bad idea outside highly controlled/scripted circumstances)

A protest is not proselytizing; it is artificially generating a news story intended to be sympathetic to your side. You have to act as the director if you want the story to come out the way you want, and control as many variables as possible. If you want to preach to capitol hill, start buying some steak dinners for reps, staffers, and lobbyists. If you want to convince voters, canvass, do polls/initiatives, and pass out literature. Public protests have a very specific use, are only good for that specific use, and require a specific type of control to be effective and productive. Using public protests as a way to rally your own side together is a darn poor substitute for planning, message, or leadership.

TCB

*Yes, I'm paraphrasing Jeff Davis here, because similar sentimentality over the terrible wrongs of slavery ran roughshod (literally) over whatever legitimate grievances the South had regarding the North's intentional sidelining of them in national politics.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's be fair, guys; this statement could be used by any reporter doing a hatchet-job on any pro-gun demonstration adjacent an anti-gun demonstration anywhere....

Okay, but it's still predicable. It also helps them and hurts us.

...I suppose the argument could be made that public rallies are a stupid waste of our effort,...

And that might well be. There is no reason to have a public demonstration unless it can be done in a way well calculated to advance our interests. If we can't figure out a way to stage a public demonstration that we can be sure will help us, then we need to find other tactics.

...A protest is not proselytizing; it is artificially generating a news story intended to be sympathetic to your side...

Yes, and that's one reason that they don't work well for us.


Many in the RKBA community have pointed at the Civil Rights Movement without understanding in any depth how it worked, why it worked, and how its lessons can and can not be useful for the advancement of our interests. But --

• During the Civil Rights Movement many Whites came to care about the plight of the Blacks, and much of the focus was to make Whites understand and care. The successes of non-Whites on the social and legislative fronts depended on Whites seeing non-Whites as oppressed. How many non-gun owners think gun owners are oppressed?
  
  
• The acts of civil disobedience, involved very normal, benign, human acts: taking a seat on a bus for the ride home after a hard day at work; sitting at a lunch counter to have a meal; a child registering to attend school; registering to vote; voting; etc. These are normal, every day thing that White folks took for granted. And it became profoundly disturbing for many White to see other humans arrested for doing these normal, benign things simply because of the color of their skin.
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• On the other hand 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 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?
    
    
  • A tired black woman arrested for taking a seat on a bus is something that many ordinary people could respond sympathetically to. Does anyone really think that a man arrested for the illegal possession of a gun is likely to produce anything like a similar degree of sympathy in a non-gun owner -- especially after Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook?
  
  
• Let's look at the comparison with the Civil Rights Movement graphically. In the days of the Civil Rights Movement:
  
  
  • White folks cared in 1960 when U. S. Marshals had to escort a black girl to school in New Orleans, Louisiana.
    
    
  • White folks cared in 1963 when George Wallace attempted to block the desegregation of the University of Alabama. He was confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama Army National Guard and forced to step aside.
    
    
  • White folks cared in 1963 when Wallace again attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in segregated elementary schools in Huntsville.
    
    
  • And White folks cared about --
    
    
    • 
      
      
      and
      
      
    • 
      
      
      and
      
      
    • 
      
      
      and
      
      
    • 
    
    
  • On the other hand, what do non-gun owners (and many gun owners) think about:
    
    
    • 
      
      
      and
      
      
    • 

 

[darrenlobo]

For the nay sayers, here's the first press coverage & it's very fair to both sides. If anything the other side looks bad for refusing to have a dialogue:

Demonstrations slated to address gun rights, control

A group of gun control advocates will march seven miles Saturday from Chester to Media, where they will be greeted by a coalition of gun rights supporters holding a counter rally. (snip)

http://www.delcotimes.com/social-af...trations-slated-to-address-gun-rights-control

 

[Frank Ettin]

For the nay sayers, here's the first press coverage & it's very fair to both sides...

First, this doesn't mean much. The event hasn't happened yet.

Second, the gun control side generally comes across better. Note how the author of the article subtly associates the gun control advocates with Martin Luther King:

...The Delaware County United for Sensible Gun Policy is hosting a march ... The demonstrators will begin their trek at Calvary Baptist Church — where Martin Luther King once preached — and conclude at the Providence Friends Meeting House.....

...If anything the other side looks bad for refusing to have a dialogue...

Not, I suspect, to most readers:

...Rumsey said the goal of the gun control demonstrators is to influence elected officials, not to engage extremists.

“They have a right to be there, but we’re not going to be intimidated by them,” Rumsey said.....

Darren, you're just further demonstrating that you really don't understand the public, the press or influencing pubic opinion.

 

[Machineguntony]

At the very least, these open carry guys could dress up in suits or some Sunday outfits. These pics of open carry are just playing right into the negative stereo types.

There's a reason why lobbyists wear suits. Like it or not, image is important in a debate.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Martin Luther King. Calvary Baptist Church. Friends Meeting house. The only thing missing on the gun control side is Mom and apple pie. They'll probably bring those out at their rally.

Darren, you still don't see that you're bucking a stacked deck here?

 

[Tom Servo]

“I say end the war on drugs if you really want to do something about the murder rate,” Wolfe said.

...and you're off message again.

What literature will you be passing out, and how do you plan on actually engaging the crowd?

 

[JimDandy]

I'd leave the EBRs at home. From my knowledge of persuasion and attitudes towards such - you will not convince those who are anti and you will probably move the middle against you and towards the anti side.

Normally I'd agree with you, but the rest of your advice:

Dress like going to a formal religious service or business meeting.

piqued my curiosity, and makes me wonder what would come of a group like this all dressed in tuxedos or 3 piece suits, with rifles slung over there shoulders, never handled.

The tuxedos may be over the top, but I can't help but snicker a bit at the idea of a bunch of guys and gals in business semi-formal wear, an EBR slung over their shoulder, a picket sign clamped under one arm standing on the edge of a sidewalk, quietly all but ignoring the world walking by, nose deep in their cellphones and ipads engrossed in either actual work, or pretend work known as Angry Birds. Just need someone to take some pictures of that for the local news, facebook pages, etc.

 

[Frank Ettin]

“I say end the war on drugs if you really want to do something about the murder rate,” Wolfe said.

...and you're off message again....

While we're at it, let's compare messages -- according to the article:

• Anti-gun --
  
  

  • Terry Rumsey, co-chair of the Delco United for Sensible Gun Policy, said gun control advocates are confident that a universal background check would pass the General Assembly if such a bill ever reached the floor of the House or Senate. His reasoning? The vast majority of Pennsylvanians support expanded background checks.

    
    

  • Rumsey pointed a report issued by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, which found that more than 2.1 million illegal firearms sales have been stopped since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted.
    
    “We know that background checks work,” Rumsey said.

  
  
  • Since most people like to be with the majority and most people don't like the idea of illegal gun sales, care about those anti-gun messages.
  
  
• Pro-gun --
  
  

  • “Our view is very strongly that background checks and things are just incremental steps toward gun banning,” Wolfe said.

    
    

  • “We have the history of the United Kingdom to show us where that leads to. ... You basically can’t buy a handgun over there.”

  
  
  • How many non-gun owners care? Many people really do want guns banned, or at least aren't terribly worried about the possibility of that happening. Some people would be delighted if handguns weren't available here, or at least aren't terribly worried about the possibility of that happening.
    
    
  • But even worse, Darren Wolfe, in his statements, confirmed for those folks who wouldn't care about guns being banned that what Terry Rumsey and his minions are doing could produce a result those folks would like. In other words, Darren has effectively encouraged anyone even mildly anti-gun to support Terry Rumsey.

 

[carguychris]

“Our view is very strongly that background checks and things are just incremental steps toward gun banning,” Wolfe said.

How many non-gun owners care? Many people really do want guns banned, or at least aren't terribly worried about the possibility of that happening. Some people would be delighted if handguns weren't available here, or at least aren't terribly worried about the possibility of that happening.

+1. I find that it's hard to correctly convey the "UBC's as Incremental Gun Ban" argument to indifferent non-gun owners without coming across as irrational and paranoid. The "UBC's as an Unfair Burden on Law-Abiding Citizens" is better IMHO; it casts gun owners in a more sympathetic light. The conversation should be about keeping your RIGHTS, not keeping your toys.

Another important thing to remember is that precious few non-gun owners understand how NICS checks and dealer logbooks work, and that many of these people* believe that the NICS system is already a federal registry and that people selling guns without background checks are somehow "gaming the system"- i.e. cheating. Again- educating the ignorant is the key.

*Some gun owners also believe this, but let's not go there.

 

[Machineguntony]

While on this topic, an explanation that I hear often, that is ridiculous, polarizing, and sounds like a thoughtless "bumper sticker" response that only preaches to the choir at the expense losing a moderate/undecided person...

Gun don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[Tom Servo]

I find that it's hard to correctly convey the "UBC's as Incremental Gun Ban" argument to indifferent non-gun owners without coming across as irrational and paranoid.

Actually, my argument is that it will lead to universal registration. Is there any other way to enforce it? Nope. So there we are. I've had a few people change their minds when it was put that way.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Actually, my argument is that it will lead to universal registration. Is there any other way to enforce it? Nope. So there we are. I've had a few people change their minds when it was put that way.

But probably only gun type folks. Most non-gun owners already thing that guns are registered (or that it would be a fine idea).

 

[40-82]

I live in Virginia, and my impression is that the average person I meet has no idea that open carry is legal. When someone in my family invites a new guest to the farm, and they see me open carrying on my own land a half-mile from the nearest road and completely out of public sight, they often blurt, "Aren't you afraid of getting arrested?" The first reason a law proposed to ban open carry is unlikely to gain traction is that most people seem to believe that it is already against the law. The second reason such a proposal is unlikely to gain traction is that most people have never seen anyone carry openly, and they would consider it a waste of time to put effort in something that nobody does anyway. Outside of someone carrying a handgun while hunting I have seen open carry twice in the last three years.

What would happen if we made a large effort to de-sensitize people to open carry? Anything I could say would obviously be speculation, but I doubt that the risk would pay off.

 

[JimDandy]

Actually, my argument is that it will lead to universal registration. Is there any other way to enforce it? Nope. So there we are. I've had a few people change their minds when it was put that way

But probably only gun type folks. Most non-gun owners already thing that guns are registered (or that it would be a fine idea).

I wonder where I fit in. I'm a gun guy. I believe UBC can be done without universal registration, and I'm against registration on privacy grounds even more than 2A grounds.

If UBC are for transfer of title and go through the same current system retail Point of Sale does (NICS, 4473, FFL keeps the form not ATF, etc.) it wouldn't require registration, and would be as enforceable as the retail background check laws that both sides currently consider enforceable. We can't really say the retail laws aren't enforceable while complaining those laws aren't being enforced and violators not prosecuted, can we? Nor can they say they're not enforceable while they're laying the blame for the lack of prosecutions and oversight on a severely understaffed ATF organization.

Some other procedural changes may be necessary or prudent- along the lines of removing the cost to the FFL for running the check, and some minor compensation when they perform these checks as an agent of the government as required by law (to avoid unfunded mandate or taxing a right issues) but that's probably overdue anyway, and don't change the meat of the issue.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .The first reason a law proposed to ban open carry is unlikely to gain traction is that most people seem to believe that it is already against the law. The second reason such a proposal is unlikely to gain traction is that most people have never seen anyone carry openly, and they would consider it a waste of time to put effort in something that nobody does anyway

Actually, I would consider those to be pretty good reasons that most people would support a ban on OC. As to the first, if folks believe it's already illegal, they see no problem passing another law having the same effect (despite my personal view that it's silly to make something "doubly illegaler.") As to teh second, I'd bet on the view that "if nobody does it anyway, there's no problem making it illegal."

As to UBCs and universal registration, incremental gun bans, and the like, whenever I have that conversation, I find that my most effective tactic is to ask lots of questions, usually with an eye to "walking the other guy out on a limb," which I will then saw out from under him.

 

[Spats McGee]

I wonder where I fit in. I'm a gun guy. I believe UBC can be done without universal registration, and I'm against registration on privacy grounds even more than 2A grounds.

If UBC are for transfer of title go through the same current system retail Point of Sale does (NICS, 4473, FFL keeps the form not ATF, etc.) it wouldn't require registration, and would be as enforceable as the retail background check laws that both sides currently consider enforceable.

I disagree, JimDandy. UBCs are not enforeceable without registration. Consider what happens after someone is alleged to have transferred a firearm without a BC and charged accordingly. It's the burden of the State to prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Here are some hypothetical elements (based on my educated guesses) as to what the prosecution would have to prove:
1) That Alex Accused did transfer;
2) A firearm;
3) To Danny Defendant;
4) During a period in which the UBC law was in effect;
5) Without using whatever BC mechanism is specified.

Now, this is easy enough to do in BATFE or police sting operations, or where police surveillance provides a "witness" to the transaction. But what if Alex and Danny are just private citizens? Presumably, the law would criminalize the transfer from both sides. That is, transferring to someone, or accepting a transfer from someone, without a UBC would be illegal. Alex and Danny both have A4 and A5 rights not to testify as to the transaction. In the absence of registration, how will the prosecutor prove that Alex and Danny did the deed after the effective date of the law?

We can't really say the retail laws aren't enforceable while complaining those laws aren't being enforced and violators not prosecuted, can we? Nor can they say they're not enforceable while they're laying the blame for the lack of prosecutions and oversight on a severely understaffed ATF organization.

Sure we can. Just because Law A isn't being enforced, there's no reason that I can't argue that Law B is unenforceable. That is the precise situation that we have. Prosecutions on straw purchases are extremely rare, Abramski notwithstanding, but that has no bearing on whether UBCs are enforceable without registration.

Some other procedural changes may be necessary or prudent- along the lines of removing the cost to the FFL for running the check, and some minor compensation when they perform these checks as an agent of the government as required by law (to avoid unfunded mandate or taxing a right issues) but that's probably overdue anyway, and don't change the meat of the issue.

I have a number of privacy concerns about UBCs that will likely be alleviated by any procedural changes. What's more, since I don't believe that convicted felons are subject to prosecution for failing to register or use UBCs in their transactions, I have some fundamental, philosophical objections to requiring law-abiding citizens to do so.

 

[JimDandy]

Now, this is easy enough to do in BATFE or police sting operations, or where police surveillance provides a "witness" to the transaction.

And how do these prosecutions occur when there's no witness, and Alex Accused is an FFL selling what he reports as stoelen out the backdoor of his FFL shop to prohibited persons?

How did the government prove such a transaction happened before or after the NICS system came into effect on inventory acquired by FFL's before NICS came into effect?

In this type of system, there will always be a lag time where items already in commerce don't have a paper trail. Eventually they likely will. Some will enter this part of the system almost immediately as their manufacture date or even original point of sale will occur after the specified date. Most of the rest will enter the system through the natural course of commerce afterwards as they're transferred various times over the course of their "life".

 

[Spats McGee]

That doesn't answer my question. How do you expect UBCs to be enforceable without registration?

And how do these prosecutions occur when there's no witness, and Alex Accused is an FFL selling what he reports as stoelen out the backdoor of his FFL shop to prohibited persons?

That's a different question. I don't know the answer, but I suspect that changing Alex to an FFL, as you have done, would give BATFE a few extra tools at their disposal, such as the authority to examine Alex's bound books, which he is required by law to keep.

That said, my first reaction is that if a felon is caught in possession, he can be charged with felon-in-possession, which gives the prosecutor some leverage to get him to testify against the FFL. In the case where neither Alex or Danny are prohibited, as I posted above, where's the leverage to get one to roll on the other?

In the case where no felon is caught in possession, it may not be prosecutable, but there's more to it than just transferring to a prohibited person. There's also insurance fraud, and who knows what else. Once the gov't gets to digging around on one offense, it may lead to proof of others.

How did the government prove such a transaction happened before or after the NICS system came into effect on inventory acquired by FFL's before NICS came into effect?

I don't honestly know. Again, though, IIRC, BATFE can examine an FFL's bound books pretty much at will. Accordingly, if a comparison between bound books and invoices, inventories, bank records, etc., shows $$ coming in and inventory going out after the effective date of NICS, witout the appropriate notations somewhere, then the prosecuting authority may well be able to prove his case.

That does nothing to illuminate the sitation with the enforceability of UBCs as to private citizens, though.

In this type of system, there will always be a lag time where items already in commerce don't have a paper trail. Eventually they likely will. Some will enter this part of the system almost immediately as their manufacture date or even original point of sale will occur after the specified date. Most of the rest will enter the system through the natural course of commerce afterwards as they're transferred various times over the course of their "life".

So? Sure there will be a lag time. IMHO, that lag time will be = forever. At a minimum, decades. Decades of making law-abiding citizens drive to their local FFL, pay a fee, and have the BC done, during which the feds still won't be able to prosecute anyone for failing to do so without registration, and still won't be able to prosecute felons for failing to do so under any circumstances.

You still haven't answered my question. Put on your thinking cap, JD, and tell me how a prosecutor will prove that a FTF transaction in the absence of registration.

While I'm at it, allow me to pose another question: Is it really fair to force private citizens to go through a background check in order to transfer their private, lawfully-acquired property, when felons cannot be forced to do so?