TEXAS WEIGHS ALLOWING OPEN CARRY OF HANDGUNS

[BLADEMDA]

Do we really need open carry in the USA?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-14-14-41-08

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted59964]

of course you do - you need to be able to access your weapon real fast - so you can defend yourself against other americans who also have guns at the ready.

 

[deleted480308]

Of course we do....we have a constitutional right to have them and shouldn't have to keep them hidden. You know how hot it is in texas?

 

[Planktonmd]

Do we really need open carry in the USA?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-14-14-41-08

I think open carry is much better and safer than concealed carry

 

[deleted480308]

I think open carry is much better and safer than concealed carry

I actually prefer concealed but the option should be there

 

[anbuitachi]

will docs be going to work with guns? hahah

 

[deleted480308]

will docs be going to work with guns? hahah

They should be legal to do so, likely hospitals wouldn't allow it though as private property owners

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I would PERSONALLY assist young black men and Arab men in getting there open carry permits. I would LOVE to see how accepting Texans really are of universal gun rights.

 

[pgg]

Do we really need

It's not about need. When you frame the question wrong, you get useless answers.


I think open carry should be legal in all states, but I don't think I'd ever do it. Concealed carry is sufficient for me in terms of accessibility, and it's less provocative. A lot of open carry advocates seem to think being provocative is the point though.

 

[ZzzPlz]

It's not about need. When you frame the question wrong, you get useless answers.


I think open carry should be legal in all states, but I don't think I'd ever do it. Concealed carry is sufficient for me in terms of accessibility, and it's less provocative. A lot of open carry advocates seem to think being provocative is the point though.

exactly. I would get a kick out of carrying this openly

and in several parts of the country i could! But then you give the cops a right to stop you and ask for your ID (which you dont have to give them!) and no one wants that.

lots of people have fun getting stopped by cops for open carry



but I would choose to avoid all that. And i carry this instead.

way more comfortable. why would anyone want people to know that they have a firearm?

if 6+1 shots of 9mm +p dont do it, i shouldnt have pulled it out in the first place

 

[deleted480308]

exactly. I would get a kick out of carrying this openly

and in several parts of the country i could! But then you give the cops a right to stop you and ask for your ID (which you dont have to give them!) and no one wants that.

lots of people have fun getting stopped by cops for open carry



but I would choose to avoid all that. And i carry this instead.

way more comfortable. why would anyone want people to know that they have a firearm?

if 6+1 shots of 9mm +p dont do it, i shouldnt have pulled it out in the first place

In those states the cops don't have a right to stop you

 

[pgg]

There's a running joke amongst California gun rights advocates -

How does a Californian shoot himself in the foot with an unloaded gun? Unloaded open carry.


In California, until recently, it was legal to openly carry an unloaded firearm. So if you couldn't get a concealed carry permit (as most people couldn't) you had the option of openly carrying an unloaded gun, and also carrying a loaded magazine. In the case of needing it to legally defend yourself, you could then load the gun and shoot the attacker. Yes, its ******ed, but hey ... California.

So these activists, who mostly meant well but also ignored the the sound strategic advice of organized rights organizations like SAF and CGF decided that they'd protest the restrictive, discriminatory, unconstitutional may-issue (ie, no-issue) concealed carry permit system. So they'd go out and legally march and peacefully gather with their unloaded, openly-carried guns. Which of course, freaked people out and predictably led the D-supermajority banning open carry outright.

In the larger scheme of the right, this is a terrible outcome and although I have both faith and reason to believe that it will eventually be rectified, it's a setback.[1] But the point I'm getting to with this story is that there is a certain amount of strategy and planning that must be done well in order to advance and protect even an obviously correct civil right. It's the difference between strategy and tactics, the big picture, the Black Panthers and MLK.[2]

So the problem with pushing for open carry rights isn't that the people don't deserve to have the right protected, it's that it's the wrong battle to be fighting right now in the larger gun rights war.



[1] The irony is that by banning open carry outright, the gun grabbers gifted us a powerful legal argument (which has won at the 9th Circuit, Peruta v San Diego) for compelling California to go to shall-issue, because (summarizing) since the 2nd Amendment guarantees, among other things, an individual's right to self defense with a handgun (as held by SCOTUS in Heller v DC), but doesn't specify the manner of carry, states can not ban both open and concealed carry. And since CA decided to completely ban all forms of open carry, well, now they have to issue concealed carry permits to everyone who's not a legally prohibited person.

[2] And incidentally, we have racism to thank for the rise of California's draconian gun law culture. See the 1967 Mulford Act, which (also summarizing) banned the open carry of loaded firearms in direct response to the Black Panthers gettin' all uppity about demanding that black people be treated as human beings. All gun control is fundamentally racist and classist. One of the great lies and cons put forth by gun control advocates is that gun control is actually good for oppressed, disadvantaged, and poor minorities. It's ****ing Orwellian, is what it is.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

You're talking about the Mulford Act that the NRA helped draft, and Governor Ronald Reagan signed, in response to the "policing of the police" by the Black Panthers in black neighborhoods? You know what you're talking about so if you're saying Reagan and the NRA are/were racist I won't argue.

Like I say, if open carry becomes widespread, I would ACTIVELY help arm all the scary folks the NRA are protecting themselves from, like black people, Arabs, and the poor. I imagine many people will form groups for greater protection. That is gonna be a REAL exciting time!

 

[Spinach Dip]

This whole discussion is mad. But is it a deterrent to crime, or a provocation thereof?

 

[BLADEMDA]

It's not about need. When you frame the question wrong, you get useless answers.


I think open carry should be legal in all states, but I don't think I'd ever do it. Concealed carry is sufficient for me in terms of accessibility, and it's less provocative. A lot of open carry advocates seem to think being provocative is the point though.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/supreme-court-traffic-stop-search-ok-despite-mistake-law/

According the Supreme Court being provocative may have consequences. If the police officer acts reasonably and thinks you are in violation of the law you may be searched and/or detained.

 

[deleted480308]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/supreme-court-traffic-stop-search-ok-despite-mistake-law/

According the Supreme Court being provocative may have consequences. If the police officer acts reasonably and thinks you are in violation of the law you may be searched and/or detained.

for such an educated group, they sure can be oblivious to basic rights against search and seizure

an officer has no place stopping you for something that isn't a crime

 

[pgg]

You're talking about the Mulford Act that the NRA helped draft, and Governor Ronald Reagan signed, in response to the "policing of the police" by the Black Panthers in black neighborhoods? You know what you're talking about so if you're saying Reagan and the NRA are/were racist I won't argue.

In the 60s yes. But Reagan's dead now and the NRA is a different organization today.

Like I say, if open carry becomes widespread, I would ACTIVELY help arm all the scary folks the NRA are protecting themselves from, like black people, Arabs, and the poor. I imagine many people will form groups for greater protection. That is gonna be a REAL exciting time!

I don't know where you get this idea that the NRA is worried about scary minorities or poor people. They (we, as I am a member) advocate and fight for their rights too. Rich people have NEVER had difficulty owning weapons ... the 1934 National Firearms Act was tailor made to discriminate against and disarm poor people, because it didn't actually ban guns, just put an exorbitant tax on some (over $3000 in today's dollars). You have an odd perception of whose rights the NRA fights for.

As for "forming groups" the concept of militias is another topic entirely.

And as for any of this being exciting, well, call me a skeptic, but the gun control side has been howling hysterically about "blood in the streets" and "wild wild west" since the concealed carry movement took off something like 20 years ago, and it just hasn't happened.

I would be happy to see those blacks, Arabs, and poor people you think I'm afraid of exercising their rights and working with me to protect them.

 

[deleted480308]

In the 60s yes. But Reagan's dead now and the NRA is a different organization today.



I don't know where you get this idea that the NRA is worried about scary minorities or poor people. They (we, as I am a member) advocate and fight for their rights too. Rich people have NEVER had difficulty owning weapons ... the 1934 National Firearms Act was tailor made to discriminate against and disarm poor people, because it didn't actually ban guns, just put an exorbitant tax on some (over $3000 in today's dollars). You have an odd perception of whose rights the NRA fights for.

As for "forming groups" the concept of militias is another topic entirely.

And as for any of this being exciting, well, call me a skeptic, but the gun control side has been howling hysterically about "blood in the streets" and "wild wild west" since the concealed carry movement took off something like 20 years ago, and it just hasn't happened.

I would be happy to see those blacks, Arabs, and poor people you think I'm afraid of exercising their rights and working with me to protect them.

i'm all for arming the law abiding citizens....that's a win all around

 

[Ipassgas]

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Robert A. Heinlein

Ahh, a gun thread. SDN, I love you just the way you are.

Personally, I think that guns in the hands of reasonable, experienced people pose no threat to the populace, but provide a deterrent to those who aren't so socially well adjusted.

Whether open or concealed carry is better though, I could only guess.

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with herd immunity. It's the foundational principle of modern immunization programs. You don't need to immunize EVERYONE effectively, just so many people/cows/aardvarks that there aren't enough susceptible individuals to spread the illness to eachother.

You guys remember lojack? It worked on an individual level, but there was also a herd immunity component. Researchers found that when lojack prevalence hit about 15%, car theft dropped precipitously. The risk lojack brought was just too high to justify the reward of stealing the car.

Sane criminals all acknowledge they will bypass hard/risky/dangerous targets (animate or inanimate) in favour of easier/safer ones. If we reach a critical mass of armed citizens, only the stupid or insane will victimize people. I firmly believe this, thus an armed society is a polite society.

I just have no idea what that prevalence would have to be. 10%? 30%? 80? I'd guess low double digits, but it's a guess, and I don't know we'll ever find out.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I don't suggest that the NRA is racist as an organization. I think they'll take ANYONE in an effort to expand their size and political power. They actively court minorities.

But I think a large portion of the individual members are another story. And if you think many of the God fearing gun toting NRA members of the south would be happy to see groups of minorities with guns fully displayed, well, I doubt you think that.

 

[Mad Jack]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/supreme-court-traffic-stop-search-ok-despite-mistake-law/

According the Supreme Court being provocative may have consequences. If the police officer acts reasonably and thinks you are in violation of the law you may be searched and/or detained.

What sort of country do we live in that exercising our Constitutional rights is considered "provocative?"

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Really? You don't see people being provocative with freedom of speech or with issues related to religion? Or with the police and recent cases imposing on due process? Or the states making laws that break federal law?

 

[deleted480308]

Really? You don't see people being provocative with freedom of speech or with issues related to religion? Or with the police and recent cases imposing on due process? Or the states making laws that break federal law?

state laws really should supercede federal and states should have the option of leaving

 

[pgg]

What sort of country do we live in that exercising our Constitutional rights is considered "provocative?"

I agree with you in principal, that open carry ought to be legal everywhere, with few restrictions (e.g. courthouses, polling sites). But don't confuse right with wise.

Provocative speech isn't illegal. The words might be rude, obnoxious, pointless, ignorant, stupid, or simply ill-advised given the context of the time and place. You have the right to be any and all of those things with your speech.

The same could be said for open carry of a firearm. In some places where it's legal, it may be simply rude, or it may just be tactically unsound in the context of our broader push for protection and restoration of gun rights in general.


How does a Californian shoot himself in the foot with an unloaded gun?


On the whole, we're winning our court cases because we're right, and because all the gun control side has left are emotional arguments and grandstanding. (Some of the Sandy Hook families just sued the gun manufacturers yesterday - headshakingly pointless, except as a gesture.) But we're also winning because we are (mostly) choosing our battles wisely. IMO, a push to expand open carry rights - at least in blue states - is probably not the best use of our time, money, and political capital. All it's likely to do at this point is upset and motivate our opposition.

state laws really should supercede federal and states should have the option of leaving

We tried that in the beginning and it didn't work out, because half the states decided the state right they cared about most was the right to own slaves.

Do you really want to have to worry if your civil rights will change or evaporate if you cross a state line, because statesrights?

 

[deleted171991]

What sort of country do we live in that exercising our Constitutional rights is considered "provocative?"

When you're dealing with entitled officers of the law (if you want to know someone's true character just give him/her power), exercising any of your rights is provocative. It's simply lese-majesty (how dare you to contradict me, you citizen scum?). They are a pretty entitled bunch because the law allows them to get away with almost anything.

 

[drmwvr]

You're talking about the Mulford Act that the NRA helped draft, and Governor Ronald Reagan signed, in response to the "policing of the police" by the Black Panthers in black neighborhoods? You know what you're talking about so if you're saying Reagan and the NRA are/were racist I won't argue.

Like I say, if open carry becomes widespread, I would ACTIVELY help arm all the scary folks the NRA are protecting themselves from, like black people, Arabs, and the poor. I imagine many people will form groups for greater protection. That is gonna be a REAL exciting time!

What makes you think your "scary folks" need your help arming themselves?

 

[deleted480308]

We tried that in the beginning and it didn't work out, because half the states decided the state right they cared about most was the right to own slaves.

Do you really want to have to worry if your civil rights will change or evaporate if you cross a state line, because statesrights?

Thus the ability to leave the union...with 30%income tax, we're all slaves to the union now

 

[Ignatius J]

When you're dealing with entitled officers of the law (if you want to know someone's true character just give him/her power), exercising any of your rights is provocative. Tis simply lese-majesty (how dare you to contradict me, you citizen scum?). They are a pretty entitled bunch because the law allows them to get away with almost anything.

I see you haven't stopped beating that drum. Good to see that you weren't looking at Ferguson through a clear lens.

Hundreds of thousands of police officer-civilian interactions everyday that are peaceful and contribute to the betterment of our protection. But hey, let's cherry pick a few incidents and push our agenda.

I'm in full support of this law, by the way. To Texans, this isn't provocative or outlandish. It's a very pro gun state. Why I'm glad we're divided into states and we don't have to deal a lot with progressives who look down their nose at this.

 

[deleted171991]

I don't have an "agenda". (I am not a militant person, by nature.) I only have opinions. I apologize for my free uncensored speech that seems to continuously bother you.

I lean libertarian. It's absolutely normal that I am not a big fan of tough/oversized/overzealous law enforcement. They swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws, and yet they don't always, and get away with it unpunished. I am very grateful to and respectful of all those officers who always do their job in a manner that would make their mothers proud. But I do believe that power corrupts (the soul, at least), and that the watchers need to be watched by the citizenry.

Happy Holidays!

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/First_they_came_...

 

[Ignatius J]

I don't have an "agenda". (I am not a militant person, by nature.) I only have opinions. I apologize for my free uncensored speech that seems to continuously bother you.

I lean libertarian. Tis absolutely normal that I am not a big fan of tough/oversized/overzealous law enforcement. They swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws, and yet they don't always, and get away with it unpunished. I am very grateful to and respectful of all those officers who always do their job in a manner that would make their mothers proud. But I do believe that power corrupts (the soul, at least), and that the watchers need to be watched by the citizenry.

Happy Holidays!

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/First_they_came_...

I think we can all agree that there are bad apples out there, but that doesn't make every situation where a police officer kills someone the police officer's fault. I think we can also agree that police officers are in extreme circumstances and sometimes have to decide in milliseconds whether their life is in danger and warrants deadly force. In Ferguson, it did.

We can't assume that just because individuals have power that they are thereby corrupt either.

Nevertheless, 120+ police officers died in the line of duty last year. The police force sheds blood protecting the American public weekly. I think they are owed more respect than you give them.

 

[deleted480308]

I think we can all agree that there are bad apples out there, that doesn't make every situation where a police officer kills someone is the police officer's fault. I think we can also agree that police officers are in extreme circumstances and sometimes have to decide in milliseconds whether their life is in danger and warrants deadly force. In Ferguson, it did.

We can't assume that just because individuals have power that they are thereby corrupt.

Nevertheless, 120+ police officers died in the line of duty last year. The police force sheds blood protecting the American public weekly. I think they are owed more respect than you give them.

The point is that not all of them deserve respect because some of them are bad... The great ones are great

 

[deleted171991]

Nevertheless, 120+ police officers died in the line of duty last year. The police force sheds blood protecting the American public weekly. I think they are owed more respect than you give them.

How do you know how much respect I give them? I think you tend to assume a bit too much about me. And I am tired of apologizing. If you don't like my posts, please ignore them.

On the other hand, the police fatality rate on the job is so low that it's not even among the top 10 most dangerous jobs (there are 900,000+ sworn officers in the US). It's about 3-4 times the average fatality rate on any job. Since you are teaching me lessons, I am sure you show the appropriate even higher respect to the logger, the fisher, the pilot, the roofer, the steel worker, the refuse collector, the electrical power line installer, the truck driver, the farmer and the construction worker. Because not only is their job riskier, but most of these guys have it much tougher than police officers, by the way.

And just so you can sleep well at night, I have never disrespected any law enforcement officer in my life, on duty or not, and I don't intend to. Not only because I try to show respect to them as people, but because I respect what they are supposed to represent. But I believe that with great power comes great responsibility, and not just a slap on the wrist in case of fatal mistakes. And I don't believe in authoritarianism, even for the sake of security. As Franklin said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

In the era of tasers, we should not excuse so easily the shooting of unarmed suspects.

 

[Ignatius J]

How do you know how much respect I give them? I think you tend to assume a bit too much about me. And I am tired of apologizing. If you don't like my posts, please ignore them.

On the other hand, the police fatality rate on the job is so low that Tis not even among the top 10 most dangerous jobs (there are 900,000+ sworn officers in the US). Tis about 3-4 times the average fatality rate on any job. Since you are teaching me lessons, I am sure you show the appropriate even higher respect to the logger, the fisher, the pilot, the roofer, the steel worker, the refuse collector, the electrical power line installer, the truck driver, the farmer and the construction worker. Because not only is their job riskier, but most of these guys have it much tougher than police officers, by the way.

And just so you can sleep well at night, I have never disrespected any law enforcement officer in my life, on duty or not, and I don't intend to. Not only because I try to show respect to them as people, but because I respect what they are supposed to represent. But I believe that with great power comes great responsibility, and not just a slap on the wrist in case of fatal mistakes. And I don't believe in authoritarianism, even for the sake of security. As Franklin said:

In the era of tasers, we should not excuse so easily the shooting of unarmed suspects.

I'll say this and then I'll leave it alone as you are exercising your right to spout your opinion in this great country of ours.

I would like to think I respect all professions, but I won't pretend that two farmers were driving through NYC last week and got blasted by an anti-farmer activist. Or that #diefarmersdie is trending on Instagram. Simply put, and I've said this many times, cops have hundreds of thousands of interactions a year that makes a safer America. And it's disingenuous to contort an argument to compare them to, say, steel workers, when it is clear that cops confront violent behavior head on moreso than any of the professions you listed. As public servants, they deserve credit for what they do, and I agree, bad apples should be dealt with accordingly. However, they need to be dealt with fairly as well.

A "string 'em up" mentality isn't how to solve these types of issues, and make no mistake, that is exactly what the mindset of many protesters has been as reflected in their actions and their divisive rhetoric. You don't loot. You don't block traffic. You don't go killing cops. You don't go supporting people who killed cops. This isn't the Wild West. That's what happens when you don't have authority.

Yes, there are bad cops. We can all agree. There are also doctors who are awful human beings too. And I'm not going to let a handful of doctors who commit Medicare fraud or get away with bad patient care speak for the thousands of doctors that do good work treating patients every day. And those bad apple doctors shouldn't change people's viewpoints on what we as doctors strive to do.

If you want the final word, you can have it.

 

[deleted171991]

You make some excellent points.

I'll say this and then I'll leave it alone as you are exercising your right to spout your opinion in this great country of ours.

I would like to think I respect all professions, but I won't pretend that two farmers were driving through NYC last week and got blasted by an anti-farmer activist. Or that #diefarmersdie is trending on Instagram. Simply put, and I've said this many times, cops have hundreds of thousands of interactions a year that makes a safer America. And it's disingenuous to contort an argument to compare them to, say, steel workers, when it is clear that cops confront violent behavior head on moreso than any of the professions you listed.

I was trying to make the point that there are many more dangerous professions. I was honestly surprised that the military was not included. In my eyes, they are the supreme public servants of the nation. And I have a ton of respect for all police officers who confront violent behavior without using excessive force. It's not an easy job.

As public servants, they deserve credit for what they do, and I agree, bad apples should be dealt with accordingly. However, they need to be dealt with fairly as well.

They seem to be not public servants, but public employees, at least by behavior. But they do deserve a lot of credit for what they do, which is reflected in their generous benefits and pensions.

A "string 'em up" mentality isn't how to solve these types of issues, and make no mistake, that is exactly what the mindset of many protesters has been as reflected in their actions and their divisive rhetoric. You don't loot. You don't block traffic. You don't go killing cops. You don't go supporting people who killed cops. This isn't the Wild West. That's what happens when you don't have authority.

No, that's what happens when people are angry. And people get angry when they perceive injustice, whether real or not. That doesn't make riots excusable; crime is crime. But in a democracy, people shouldn't fear law enforcement, like you suggest; they should respect it, and respect is earned hard and easily lost.

Yes, there are bad cops. We can all agree. There are also doctors who are awful human beings too. And I'm not going to let a handful of doctors who commit Medicare fraud or get away with bad patient care speak for the thousands of doctors that do good work treating patients every day. And those bad apple doctors shouldn't change people's viewpoints on what we as doctors strive to do.

This is the part that actually made me write this post, because I really didn't want a final word.

The main difference and problem is that the police mentality is "all for one, and one for all". When you are law enforcement and you protect your apparently rotten apples, you become a co-conspirator. The disgrace falls on the entire corps. There might be just less than 1% bad cops, but when their colleagues and the DAs stand up for them unconditionally all the time (there were 400+ police-related deaths this year and very few, if any, made it to trial), it will affect public trust in the entire corps and system. The DA made a farce out of the grand jury process in the Ferguson case (I am not talking about the facts, just the biased and imbalanced way they were presented to the grand jury), making people think that this is the way it happens all the time. It feels like one hand washes the other. Now if you add the death of Eric Garner that will go untried... If we did the same thing with our bad doctors, nobody would trust most of us.

If I really wanted a final word, this would be it (again): In the era of tasers, we should not excuse so easily the death of unarmed suspects. Especially we, the doctors. With great power comes great responsibility.

 

[nap$ter]

exactly.

but I would choose to avoid all that. And i carry this instead.

way more comfortable. why would anyone want people to know that they have a firearm?

if 6+1 shots of 9mm +p dont do it, i shouldnt have pulled it out in the first place

ha! - we carry the same pistol. i love my kahr...

 

[Pooh & Annie]

What makes you think your "scary folks" need your help arming themselves?

Lots of reasons I guess. Maybe they can't afford a gun or the process. Maybe a campaign of encouragement to be visible with their guns. You know, something along the lines: "Scary folks have a right to carry assault rifles in restaurants too". Although that might come across as a little provocative.

 

[pgg]

Lots of reasons I guess. Maybe they can't afford a gun or the process.

It's not the NRA trying to make it expensive, lengthy, and complicated.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

It's not the NRA trying to make it expensive, lengthy, and complicated.

I definitely won't argue that!