Setting Gun Owners Back...

[tomrkba]

Open carry CAN set gun owners back. We know this because we've seen it happen in the recent past. We've seen additional legal restrictions levied on residents of CA as the direct result of open carry demonstrations. We've seen private companies (Starbucks and Peet's) impose restrictions on firearms carry on their premises as the direct result of open carry demonstrations.

There is no right to keep and bear arms in the California constitution.

(citation: http://saf.org/constitutions.html)

Open handgun carry was banned and long guns had to be unloaded. Nothing was lost because they had nothing in the first place. Claiming otherwise denies the fundamental set of rules in California law.

Furthermore, California citizens possess guns at the whim of the legislature. Ammunition is next up on their chopping block with their background checks for ammo purchases. If California citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, then why are they oppressed in this manner? Don't the current laws, and newly proposed laws, prove that there is no right to keep and bear arms in that state? If not, please explain it to me.

As for the stores, those are private property. The whim of the owner dictates carry. If anything, correct constitutional law would not side with the owner in a public store; at a minimum, it would require the owner to provide equivalent physical protection to visitors.

As for the rest of it:

Open carry is a direct confrontation with the power, and perception of power, of the government.

Some people are inclined to stand against government, take risky actions, and generally be obnoxious about the topic. Others are inclined to lay low, go with the flow, and hope the government won't bother them. The vast majority of posters in this thread are in the latter group. Unfortunately--and I think ObamaCare and the NSA scandal support my position--the government won't leave people alone.

Think about what that means. If you have a concealed carry permit, then you are an "activist" or "zealot". You are head and shoulders above the rest of gun owners because you're willing to take immediate action to save your life. This is a very different attitude than the average hunter who shoots 10 rounds a year. The concealed carry permit holder is high on their priority list should it come to that. They know exactly who you are because you self-registered for the privilege of carrying a handgun.

 

[dmanisgnarly]

I don't understand why these guys want to intentionally draw negative opposition from the public's view. Walking around with a pistol at your side is one thing but to boast a rifle across your back is asking for unnecessary attention. I know we have rights but we shouldn't put any negativity toward what little rights we have left. This is the reason we are being harassed as gun owners.

 

[Tom Servo]

Nothing was lost because they had nothing in the first place.

That's not true. For example, hunters had at least some provision to carry a sidearm under the old scheme. The True Believers ruined that for them.

If anything, correct constitutional law would not side with the owner in a public store; at a minimum, it would require the owner to provide equivalent physical protection to visitors.

We've never seen a decision along those lines, and I doubt we ever will. It pits the right to self-defense (which has only recently and narrowly acknowledged) against property rights (which the courts have long acknowledged).

Others are inclined to lay low, go with the flow, and hope the government won't bother them. The vast majority of posters in this thread are in the latter group.

That's inaccurate and a bit insulting to many people. Those of us who aren't "obnoxious" are somehow less valuable to the cause than those who are? What about those who work within the system, who do the boring work that most of the zealots won't? Who really gets more done, Alan Gura or Ted Nugent?

I get it, folks want to stomp around and make a big splash. Let's not get that confused with effecting real change.

If you have a concealed carry permit, then you are an "activist" or "zealot". You are head and shoulders above the rest of gun owners because you're willing to take immediate action to save your life.

I know plenty of folks with carry permits who don't lift a finger to do anything for the RKBA. Once again, dividing us into tribes is really disingenuous.

This is a very different attitude than the average hunter who shoots 10 rounds a year.

Ah, yes. Let's all call them Fudds, shall we? You want to know who some of the most powerful advocates for our rights are? Those very same guys.

So let's lose the broad and false generalizations. They create the very division within our ranks the other side loves to pounce on.

 

[JohnKSa]

Nothing was lost because they had nothing in the first place.

People in CA used to be able to legally open carry loaded guns. As a result of open carry demonstrations by an activist group many years ago, they lost the ability to open carry loaded guns.

But they could still legally open carry UNLOADED guns. Now, as a direct result of more recent open carry demonstrations, they can no longer legally open carry at all.

To say that nothing was lost is clearly a false statement. To say that they had nothing is equally and just as obviously false.

There is no right to keep and bear arms in the California constitution.

This is a red herring. The content of the CA constitution has no bearing on the statement I responded to.

The statement I responded to was this:

"If you believe open carry sets gun owners back, then you are agreeing with the position that bearing arms is a privilege that may be revoked without a constitutional amendment."​

1. Losing the ability bear arms is a setback and in the cases listed above, the setback was caused by open carry demonstrations.

Therefore the first part of the statement can be true. We have examples that we can rely on from history--some of it very recent. It doesn't mean open carry ALWAYS sets gun owners back, but it definitely demonstrates that it CAN.

Notice that the truth of the first part of this sentence is not dependent on the content of the CA constitution.

Since the first part of the statement can very clearly be true, it would be foolish, it would be a denial of reality not to believe it.

2. CA did not change amend its constitution nor did it amend the federal constitution and yet it revoked the ability to bear arms.

Starbucks and Peets did not amend the constitution (state or federal) and yet they revoked the ability to bear arms on their premises.

Therefore the second part of the statement is also true. Clearly the ability to bear arms can be revoked without a constitutional amendment. That is true regardless of what the CA constitution does or doesn't say because no constitutions were changes and yet people's ability to legally bear arms was restricted anyway.

Since the second part of the statement is true, it makes no sense to do anything other than agree with it. Agreeing with it doesn't mean one must endorse it, or advocate it, but it doesn't make sense to disagree with the truth or to deny reality.

 

[tomrkba]

The content of the California constitution has everything to do with it. The legislature should not have the power to pass any of those laws. You understood exactly what I meant and decided to play games.

But at the end of the day, people are going to openly challenge government authority through open carry. Gun owners such as yourself are going to attempt to shame them into doing otherwise. You continue to socially attack these people and in doing so, provide support for the unconstitutional behavior of the government.

And when they ban carry in all states, you can be satisfied knowing that you supported the government's position.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Gun owners such as yourself are going to attempt to shame them into doing otherwise. You continue to socially attack these people and in doing so, provide support for the unconstitutional behavior of the government...

And you continue to demonstrate your complete failure to understand the political process and the mechanisms of social change.

The reality is that we, as a community of gun owners and advocates for the Second Amendment, must come to recognize the vital importance to the furthering of our interests of influencing public perception, increasing public understanding and acceptance of the issues from our perspectives and winning broader based pubic support.

...The legislature should not have the power to pass any of those laws...

That may be your belief, but your belief is beside the point. The reality is that they do have the power to pass those sorts of laws, and they will continue to do so as long as that is what the people who elect the member of the legislatures want.

Whether or not that power will be supported by the courts is another question, but no doubt some of those laws will be. That is another reality.

We pick the government. It's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected.

So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with guns, are afraid of guns and people with guns, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that a large part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

Be ourselves good ambassadors for shooting and gun ownership -- dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners. Alienating people whose support we may need won't help us.

There would not be restrictive gun laws if enough of our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc., did not vote for and support the people who enact those laws.

 

[Tom Servo]

But at the end of the day, people are going to openly challenge government authority through open carry.

That's certainly a romantic interpretation of it. In reality, nothing positive seems to come of it. I've seen situations in which open carry made things worse, notably California and many private businesses. I've never seen a situation in which open carry made things better for gun owners.

Gun owners such as yourself are going to attempt to shame them into doing otherwise. You continue to socially attack these people and in doing so, provide support for the unconstitutional behavior of the government.

Frank's already provided a rebuttal to this, but since you're pointing fingers, please educate us as to what you've done to reverse the rising tide of unAmericanism we supposedly support.

And when they ban carry in all states, you can be satisfied knowing that you supported the government's position.

At this point, you owe the forum a succinct, coherent explanation as to how we support a ban on carry.

 

[tomrkba]

At this point, you owe the forum a succinct, coherent explanation as to how we support a ban on carry.

Adam Kokesh went into DC to demand his right to keep and bear arms in the face of an unconstitutional law that overrides the Second Amendment. Smarmy as he may be (I have no interest in him beyond gun rights), very few gun owners expressed any sort of support for him. I did so publicly on "The Chris Plante Show" on 630 WMAL prior to the original proposed open carry event. His actions were correct in the face of an unconstitutional law.

How many of you have expressed support for Kokesh?

It is because of our lack of action (writing a letter or sending money to the NRA does not count) as gun owners that the law in DC stands. Until gun owners DEMAND our rights, we will not get them. When I go to gun rights rallies, I see only 50 or 100 people. Why is this? This is exactly how you support bans: do nothing and/or shame those who take any action that challenges the status quo.

The reality is that they do have the power to pass those sorts of laws, and they will continue to do so as long as that is what the people who elect the member of the legislatures want.

A do-nothing gun owning population is the root cause of this problem. 50,000 armed Americans protesting in front of the capitol building would change the legislators' tune quickly. Americans have forgotten that an unconstitutional law is no law at all.

 

[Tom Servo]

So, you called a radio show to support a man who co-opted our cause to get attention for his website and committed multiple felonies in the process. That really doesn't do much to turn the tide.

Kokesh doesn't care about our cause other than how it benefits him, and he could cause us harm. He's not worth supporting.

It is because of our lack of action as gun owners that the law in DC stands.

One historic Supreme Court win and several supplemental cases hardly count as lack of action.

Until gun owners DEMAND our rights, we will not get them.

Define "demand." What concrete action do you suggest that's not already being done? What exactly is it you think folks working for the NRA, the SAF, and numerous state and local organizations are doing?

This is exactly how you support bans: do nothing and/or shame those who take any action that challenges the status quo.

Here's where we come to the salient point: if we don't support things in the exact same way you do, we're traitors to the cause. That's poisonous and inapt rhetoric that does nobody any good.

 

[tomrkba]

So, you called a radio show to support a man who co-opted our cause to get attention for his website and committed multiple felonies in the process.

Tom,

You just made my case for me. Thank you.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I think everyone's case has been made.