OPEN CARRY: WHAT’S YOUR TAKE?

1. Pesonal thought, people are freaked out seeing an accidentally exposed concealed permitted weapon. How much more complaning are the highminded persons going to be over open carry.
   It’s not like the old west, gunfighters on every corner. Matt Dillons 45 LC to Steve McQueens 45-70 Mares Leg are available and affordable to own.
   I personaly prefer my 1911 in “Jackass Rig” or my H&K USP carried the same way. Extra mags abundant of course. Always a backup weapon. Either one of my Bersa .380s or my American Derringer 10mm, .45 L.C. or .45 acp.
   Have chosen to boycot Target & other stores banning weapons of any type.
   I go to extremes to avoid overkill with Glaser Safety Slugs & a lighter 185 grain projectile.
   God help us. Semper Fi, D’doc

2. 1st, the youtube video is gone.
   2nd, people who open carry on other people’s faces just to challenge them and provoke, are, I agree, like whores.
   This said, is it necessary to provoke? Until everyone relies on the Constitution and end the discussion, because there is nothing to discuss!, and this country stops passing inane gun laws trying to ban this or that gun or ammo… maybe there is a place for these “provocateur agents”…
   I would rather than people carry concealed and there should be no need to hold a permit! A copy of the 2nd Amendment, at most, should sufice!

3. I prefer my element of surprise–concealed carry.

4. So many good posts here – Mas has “poked the sleeping bear” yet again! However, I only saw one person say what has occurred to me every time this subject is in the news. No one (except Jim Carroll) seems to think a secure holster when open carrying should be required. Along with retention courses, this should be a no-brainer. Please believe me when I say I am the very last person to say we need more knee-jerk gun laws, BUT….I know in my own concealed carry universe, I have a very real concern for my own firearm’s security. I would wager if everyone were to be honest with themselves, most would agree they feel as I do.

   I also must agree with anyone who views the open carrying of long guns into any establishiment without due cause – extremely troubling with no constructive upside. I know if someone were to enter an establishment of any kind that I was in, “geared up,” I would assess the situation the way I have learned: condition orange with all efforts directed towards creating distance. The “in-your-face” approach only alienates, never educating or persuading folks to see the truth.

5. I worked as a police officer in Florida for 25 year until retirement, unthough the law permitted law enforcement to carry openly our department policy dictated we carry concealed when we were in plain cloths. It was for tactical advantage reasons.
   A recent example last week two uniformed Philidephia Police Officers walked in into a robbery in progress unbeknownst to them at a local Game Stop Store to purchase a game for one of their sons and were immediately shot killing one officer.
   Just because your not a police officer an armed citizen poses a threat to criminal activity in progress and you become a potential target carrying open or you might just walk in on a robbery when your out and about and get yourself unnecessary killed or engage in an armed confrontation.

6. Wanted to add. There are many situations and places like out camping, hunting, fishing, horse back riding, walking in the woods, rural areas, boating, on your own property on private property…. that open carry is perfectly fine and I do strongly support laws allowing it. However but not for shopping in Walmart or out to eat with the wife in Olive Garden…. It’s just too dangerous and gets the anti gun crowds unnecessarily stirred up.

7. Let me get this straight. According to another post from someone who seems to have some firsthand knowledge of this open carry activist in the video, this man is well known for trolling for confrontations with local police in this city. The recommendation is that the police ignore citizen complaints on this individual because he has the reputation of being the village idiot with the guns ( rest assured, this is how, I’m reasonably sure, he is probably viewed by a majority of the townspeople ). Somehow, it’s the police’s fault for enticing him to come to the school by their action of making sure the school was not left unprotected ( in the wake of all the uproar from recent school shooting rampages, I guess that precaution made no sense at all ).

   Sigh. If the police respond to citizen complaints, it’s harassment. If this person, who has continually shown disrespect for the peace and dignity of the other citizens and the police, goes off the deep end and harms someone, of course it’s going to be their ( the police’s ) fault for not stopping him before the fact, especially with all those warning signs they so stupidly ignored. I’m so out of sync with modern deductive reasoning. Sigh.

8. Given how the public reacts to weapons, I think open carry is generally an unnecessarily provocative act. Here in MA, I do carry concealed with extreme caution to avoid a loose coat or other situation where my handgun would visible as it is not permitted, as much as I comprehend our twisted statutes.

9. My neighborhood (in Texas) has coyotes and snakes on the walking trails so a concealed, small handgun is fine. My niece in Washington state has bears in their neighborhood. Open carry of a Marlin in 45-70 seems appropriate. I want to add another thought about constitutional carry rights. If someone has, say a 4 inch service revolver given to them by a family member, they are proficient with it, and they don’t have the money to purchase anything else, shouldn’t they be afforded the ability to open carry without a permit (the issue in Texas)? If they feel the need to carry a gun and can do so safely, I don’t want to see them prohibited or harassed in any way. To me, this is much more representative of the idea of constitutional carry. Those of us who can afford the price of a CHL, more guns, more holsters, more clothing, and more training aren’t inherently “superior” to the anyone else.

10. In Texas we will have Licensed Open Carry by the end of this legislative session. We will also have College Campus Carry for CHL holding students and staff, at public institutions anyway.

    As for me- I will likely not frequently OC as I am quite comfortable with CC and I have the appropriate dress, good gun belts and very good holsters; I find it no problem to carry a Full size Government Model Colt , concealed under a dress Arrow shirt with tie, or other normal business dress, even when its 104 in Dallas.

    In spite of the above, I want the option, sometimes OC is more convenient. On a Saturday, having to scrounge an over-shirt or light cover garment for a run to Home Depot is annoying. In the end, I am hoping to get Unlicensed Open Carry , just like the bulk of the states such as Indiana and Virginia and Arizona. Why should modern Texas be any different?

    Why no open carry in Texas since 1876 ?

    Blame the backlash against reconstruction excesses by carpetbaggers running the state government- when we cleared them out, the Legislature decided to outlaw the carrying of pistols , openly or concealed, except while “travelling”, or on your own property. The legislative notes of the debate cite a concern about ” drunken negroes carrying revolvers”. Outlawing the practice would supposedly improve public safety by prohibiting the free exercise of the Second Amendment rights to handguns of the ex-slaves ( also poor cowboys ) and it was expected “wink-wink” that no “proper person”, read ” white” would ever be prosecuted for the act- officer discretion.

    To be sure , long guns were and remain totally untouched ( you can carry long arms almost anywhere except a school, bar or convenience store) but handguns were removed from general carry except under limited circumstances – that was the law until Governor G W Bush signed the Concealed Carry Law in 1995.

    So, in Texas, “no open carry” is a racist relic of a bygone era. It should be removed.

    Moms Demand is actually pushing for the continuation of racist legislation. On they other hand, they are a creature of Mr. Bloomberg, so perhaps no surprise after all.

    Regards
    GKT

11. I generally don’t support open carry due to tactical concerns; there’s a reason why in war, the bad guys take out the defenses first. They want to reduce the chances of getting hurt themselves.
    As far as the open carry of rifles, plain stupid unless you’re living in fallujah.

12. I believe there are three kinds of people: pro-gun, anti-gun and those on the fence. Being in the pro-gun group I think part of my responsibility is to try to influence those on the fence to cross over to the pro-gun side. Why are they on the fence in the first place? I’m just not sure how effective I can be in winning them over while I open carry. In most cases – I choose not to.

13. Open carry is the red neck equivalent of saggy pants. CCW serves a useful purpose without unwanted attention. Open carry in the ‘hood will present the police with big problems as there will be a lot of folks prohibited from possessing a firearm sporting ’em, along with their crew.

    Lets keep what works and if it frustrates some, so be it.

14. open carry is a tactical decision. There are good and bad points about it and the choice needs to be left up to the individual. When a governing body makes these kinds of decisions it sets the everyone up for failure.

15. Dennis – thanks so much for “getting my mind right” on this thread. I was so self-involved with my own thoughts I never stepped back and really analyzed the gist of this whole conversation as I should have. If that bs reasoning above (“for the cause of responsible armed citizens”) is “modern deductive reasoning,” I want no part of it! There is not one good piece to that whole proposition.

16. Stupid is as stupid does.

17. I can’t even find you in the picture, let alone an open carry handgun!

18. There is a world of difference between open-carrying a holstered handgun and walking around with a rifle held at low-ready.

    As Mas mentioned, most people don’t even notice a holstered pistol and those who do don’t tend to get freaked out by it. On the other hand, even *I* get nervous when I see someone walking around looking like they’re patrolling downtown Fallujah. I have to ask myself if this is an attention whore or if it’s someone about to “go postal.” If *I* have to wonder, what does the average, gun-ignorant citizen think? Certainly nothing good for our cause.

19. It’s frustrating to hear the ongoing media reports of instigations by a few open carry “proponents” gone wild. I believe these people do their cause far more harm than good. I’m not talking well organized and respectfully behaved, armed rallies calling for redress of legitimate grievances. I’m talking blatant invitation to a “monkey dance” by belligerent idiots.

    “School Under Lock-Down as Man Approaches Building With Handgun and Rifle.” Only a mental defective would consider taking such “in your face” action to be beneficial to the cause of gun rights. These incidents are designed to cause panic and possibly instigate an inappropriate response by responders. It legitimately makes true gun rights advocates wonder which side these individuals are actually working for. At the very least, it calls into question whether these miscreants should in fact become prohibited persons, Knowingly using firearms to intentionally panic a group of people is not only stupid, it is dangerous and potentially deadly. It shows disregard for one’s own safety and that of others.

    Now here’s the flip side, in my opinion. I live in rural, northern, New York State. I don’t think the average citizen should be molested by anyone for going about their legitimate business with a side arm attached or rifle slung. Examples would include walking to check a fence line, driving a tractor to make hay or till the soil or an evening walk on a country road if one desires. My responsible, teen aged son or daughter should be able to “bicycle carry” a rifle, air gun or airsoft device to a range, a friend’s house or any other lawful activity, without fear of being “SWAT’ed” and killed or stopped and detained. People needn’t take a long arm everywhere, but I shouldn’t have to totally disarm to make a trip to the hardware store or stop at the coffee shop.

    Now, I don’t think there should be two sets of human rights, depending on where someone lives or happens to be. There shouldn’t be any infringements. However, good sense, proper judgment and respect for the peace in a civil society should prevail. It should be incumbent upon the citizen to exercise these obligations along with their various protected rights. These things aren’t something to be given up for government control. There is a proper time and place for everything, including self control.

    These so-called open carry “advocates” remind me of the male homosexual couple I observed at a public, family-friendly public venue. They were blatantly kissing, sucking and rubbing in public to the utter disgust and horror of many hundreds of onlookers. The extreme wording on their t-shirts and the in your face, chip on the shoulder attitude said it all. This wasn’t about human rights or personal freedom, it was about intentionally cramming a controversial agenda down the public’s throat in the most wanton, vile and hateful means available. The only possible outcome is to push many formerly sympathetic or live and let live observers into the other camp and give more ammunition to the opposition.

    Legal? Yes. Intelligent, productive and beneficial? No. Stupid? You decide.

20. * I support legal open carry by responsible citizens.
    * I support legal open carry to eliminate the problem of accidentally displaying the firearm, as you mention in the article.
    * I prefer the element of surprise, so prefer concealed carry. But there are sometimes I would like to open carry.
    * I would also like to see restrictions of carry, concealed or open, in hospitals, churches, universities, etc, eliminated.
    * I cringe when I see Open Carry Texas flaunting it: they are certainly counter-productive to the passing of the bills now pending in Texas. And they are so obnoxious in their display, I wonder if Bloomberg types aren’t behind the organization.
    * Dear OCT: stop your nonsense, Please! Try using tried and true methods, such as lobbying, grass-roots support, petitioning, etc, to accomplish the goal of OC in Texas.
    * Good article Mr. Ayoob.

21. The Florida 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that Concealed Carry is so available in Florida that it covers the right to bear arms.

    That is like having a poll tax against the poor. Instead institute open carry for all persons who can legally own guns.

22. Just in case others think my earlier comment was flippant concerning Mas’ entry being funny, I would like to clarify: Mas challenges us to spot the openly carried firearms, especially his Glock, in the class photo. See if you can find it.
    Mas, is that a service dog in the photo?

23. Mas, if I may point out – not only does AZ have Open Carry, but the “Holy Grail” of 2A activism, permit-optional “Constitutional Carry.” Ostensibly, this is the end goal of groups like Open Carry Texas, Open Carry Tarrant County(TX), et. al. Seeing as we have already achieved this goal, perhaps these Open Carry Activists might be well-served if they were to examine and emulate the grassroots 2A activism in AZ(and AK, WY, AR and VT) that has already proven successful?

    Thing is, what they will find is that the fight for “Constitutional Carry” is a long, arduous process(16 years in AZ to go from NO citizen CCW to “Constitutional Carry”), filled with many setbacks and disappointments, requiring a lot of persistent hard work, co-operation, and yes, compromise(at least in the short term). I can probably count on two hands the number of “Open Carry Marches” on the capitol in Phoenix, and those affairs were far more sedate than recent events in TX and WA. Conspicuously absent were any sort of threats against elected or appointed officials in AZ, beyond simple electoral defeat or recall.

    Confrontational OC activists of this ilk strike me more as attention-seekers who want their Open Carry NOW, who want it THEIR WAY, and who want everyone else to know THEY DIT IT!!! By contrast, very few people will recognize AZ 2A activists like Ken Rineer or Charles Heller by name or face, except for the fellow activists they represent in the halls of power, and the politicians, bureaucrats and staffers they work WITH(not AGAINST) to acheive their legislative goals…

24. @ Dave (the liberal, non-Uncle one)

    Since the Federal Constitution is the Law of the Land (Treaties not considered), any State, or Federal, Law that contradicts, or restricts, a Constitutional Amendment is Null and Void, and without force upon its face, not to say that there are not such enacted laws which have yet to be struck down by the Supreme Court, so I would take your Professor’s contention with a large grain of Salt myself.

25. On a personal note, I don’t much care for the subtext I see “reading between the lines” with some OC activists and OC groups, where the CCW permit process and CCW permit instruction is viewed as a venal money-making scheme for a greedy government and greedy instructors, and permit-less OC is seen as a Constitutionally-protected way to avoid paying for permit fees and for training.

    While CCW permit fees in other jurisdictions may well be extortionate, in AZ they have been administratively limited to $60, which is enough to cover the cost of the FBI fingerprint check and the administrative work(much of which is done by unpaid staff volunteers) involved in processing the application and in generating, issuing and mailing the permit. Furthermore, as a CCW instructor, I have never personally charged, or instructed for an organization that charged, more than $80 for an AZ CCW class, lasting a minimum of 8 hours.

    I’ve always tried my best to deliver value in my instruction that exceeded the cost of the class, and I frankly resent the implication in some quarters that I and my fellow professional CCW instructors are bilking or extorting money out of our students, and that we are only advocating for CCW training out of a selfish desire to “protect our rice bowls.” I also resent the attitude in some quarters that my students who have paid for my class and submitted to the permitting process are suckers and/or slaves, when they could just Open Carry without the need for a permit or a training class. Again, “reading between the lines” makes me wonder if some folks open-carry and/or agitate for permit-less OC, simply because they’re too cheap to pay for a CCW class/permit, and/or are so insecure in their knowledge and skills that they’re actually afraid of embarrassment and failure in front of an instructor and their fellow students…

    Mas, you and I both know at least one very well-trained, highly-skilled shooter who open-carries by choice(Travis, from MAG-40 and MAG-80 in Sierra Vista), and I’m sure there’s others out there(YouTuber “TheHossUSMC” has trained with James Yeager’s Tactical Response, and is an OC advocate). However, I can’t help but add up on one hand the hundreds of hiqhly-qualified instructors, and the thousands of their highly-skilled alumni, and thousands more highly-skilled competitive shooters, who all have at least one CCW permit and who advocate CCW personally and for their family, friends and students – and then on the other hand, observe the relative paucity of certified instructors in the ranks of the confrontational Open Carry activists, the egregiously unsafe gunhandling at some OC rallies, and the lack of formal training beyond entry-level military instruction(which is largely inappropriate in the context of the armed citizen) – and conclude that Open Carry, as practiced by the confrontational OC activists, “has been weighed in the balance, and found wanting.”

26. I will defend the right to responsibly carry firearms openly or concealled to my last breath. Again, responsible carry. Along with that I believe that as ambassadors to the lifestyle, it falls on us to educate and enlighten the public to the realities of it.

    Admittedly these open carry advocates, at tleast the more enthusiastic of them, are not helping the cause but I’ve yet to hear of an incident where any one of them was actually out committing crime. Arrests, charges? Yes. But engaged in actual crime? Where people lost life or limb as a result of the open carry? Not yet. And that’s because, as Mas notes in his article, for the most part, even the most ardent of us is actually law abiding.

    In many of the videos I’ve seen it’s usually the police that take the more extreme attitude of it. Many will make their case politely and argue the public perception angle quite elloquently. Others are more hard charging about it.

    I think it should be on the state as well to make the public aware of not only the legality of open carry where it is permitted, but the legality of the use of firearms overall. Too many officers of state, from town council to mayor and statesman to governor don’t do it enough.

    For me, as a rule, even though the Peoples Republic of Connecticut is technically an open carry state, I carry concealled. But that’s a personal preference. Do the ardent open carry advocates help the cause when they parade in the street or visit various establishments openly carring firearms? Maybe, maybe not. But at the least, there are people talking about it.

27. Mas, with apologies in advance for the eff bomb that I know you don’t like but is perfect in the context, let me comment by reprinting my comment at SayUncle who posted a similar dickumentary video:

    http://www.saysuncle.com/2015/02/28/pissing-off-your-own-team/

    “Question: If you saw a young black dude in full thug garb running down your street toting an AK, or an older white dude with his pointy white sheet on with a cross in one hand, a gas can in the other and a carbine on a sling, would you call for service from the leo’s you pay to serve? And if you did and they refused, would you be pissed? Or might you take up your own weapon and prepare to defend?

    The leo here is doing what he is paid to do, determining if there is a threat to the public he serves, and possibly even precluding a neighborhood vigilante from dealing with a potential threat personally, possibly resulting in a gun battle on public streets. How many here vociferously defended the actions of G. Zimmerman in profiling a potential threat and taking matters into his own hands when the cops were too slow, unnecessarily but justifiably ending one life and ruining his own? How the fuck are these scenarios different?

    Logic and reason are what separate us from the lower primates, and there is nothing logical and reasonable about defending behaviors intended to elicit exactly the response that resulted…just because someone is carrying a tool doesn’t exempt him from the requirements of a polite society; that is the very basis of a libertarianism that holds as the ideal the right and responsibility to self-governance and the concept of defending ones own without trampling on or infringing the rights of others.

    This dude ain’t on my side or yours, he’s a publicity whore and an agitator; his ends and his means are one and the same and the effects on your rights are irrelevant to him. Fuck him.”

28. Open carry of a handgun would likely derter crime. Or cause morons to show how dumb they are by badgering you. But to wlak up to a school like this boob did? Was he trying to terrify all the kids or just certain ones?

29. And just for added info, the cop in the video doesn’t even know Michigan firearms law..or is lying.

    The cop said the OCer was prohibited from carrying on school grounds because school administrators said they didn’t want him on the property. That isn’t Michigan law. The cop is either uneducated or blatantly and intentionally telling a falsehood. Michigan law stipulates that the open carry of firearms on school property is permitted for those who possess a Michigan Concealed Firearms License.

30. *Concealed Pistol License

31. Read paragraph (4) at the link below regarding weapons on school grounds, then read who is exempted in paragraph (5):

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4iqg4oitdmlwah3gkjypzjpv))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-237a

    The OCer in the video does, indeed, possess a Michigan Concealed Pistol License.

32. Sorry, bad link. Try this one:

    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-237a

33. The guy is a certifiable douchebag for the way he acted, iincluding his deliberate attempts to provoke and insult the police officers for no reason, and because of his “hey, look at me” stunt, he got more negative press attention in one day than the anti-gun groups could generate in a month. He’s about as unhelpful to our cause as anyone on the left could ever be.

34. @steve

    He did NOT walk up to the school. The building in the video is the police station. Stop playing into the Moms Demand Action propaganda.

35. Mr. Ayoob,
    As has been pointed out, we’re not all on the same team. We have different goals & differing methods to achieve them.

    I’m in no danger of being called anti-semantic so if you’ll indulge me – words have meaning. You spoke of being “allowed” to carry, and like the idea of open carry as a stop gap measure until a “permit” can be acquired. Many of the people that have commented here have similarly used words that point to their either misunderstanding what a Right actually is, or not regarding the portage of weapons as an actual right.

    I have the Right to own and carry weapons. That Right is not subject to anyone’s approval. No permits, licenses, or even training requirements can be legitimately levied against that right. As long as I do not do anything directly & imminently threatening without good cause then no one has any just basis for interfering with my Right.

    These folks that carry rifles openly – you may find them distasteful. You may feel that their efforts are ineffective or harmful to some overall strategy you envision for expanding the notion of gun carrying “privileges”. Some of them may be the biggest jerks with the most ornery dispositions in the world.

    But they’re gunowners, exercising a Right. That same Right that you have, even if you’d be content with treating it as a privilege. If they do something unsafe, then by all means point it out to correct such behavior. If they do something illegal, then first check the law itself to make sure it’s not in conflict with the constitution, and if the law passes muster then call for their arrest.

    But until they break the law or cause harm then you’re not just disparaging their Right to own & carry weapons, but mine as well as your own.

    Some of the comments here are quite disgusting – calling for someone’s arrest despite not doing anything illegal? Wanting someone declared a prohibited person because they don’t like the way a Right is exercised? Praising cops that detain someone who has not broken any law, but merely enjoyed a Right that we all have?

    From my position I don’t see enough difference twixt some of these commenters & anti-gunowners to matter that much. It’s reminiscent of the Fudd’s back in the 90’s who supported an “assault weapons” ban as long as their rabbit guns were left alone. Same mindset – they didn’t see that their Rights were involved so they opposed fellow gunowners because they found them distasteful in some way.

    Open carry has merit for some people. First, not everyone can afford the fees for a permit (permits & licenses are first & foremost a tax on the poor, not just the cheap as one fellow put it). Some, such as myself, won’t bow to the state & pay a tax to gain “permission” to exercise a Right, anymore than if someone said a permit was required to carry a bible. In hot weather it’s usually more comfortable. In all weather it doesn’t require a new clothing size (as concealed carry often does). It’s much more comfortable to carry a full sized pistol – or a medium sized pistol for the smaller framed folks. It has disadvantages as do all methods of carrying arms, but it should be solely personal discretion that decides, not government edict, or the ability to scrape up enough for a training class and permit fees.

    (As an aside, some of the most vocal opponents we’ve had in Colorado for over a decade regarding Constitutional or even permit-less carry are instructors. Some of them, as some here, weep & wail about the necessity of training. But when someone demands the force of state be used to compel my training I do conclude that their main concern is much more about their “ricebowls” as it was put, rather than my edification. In a free, undistorted market good instructors do just fine and are valuable resources. But the ones that use “education” as a rationale for imposing upon MY Rights are little better than Bloomberg.)

    Oh, “attention whores”? Not “necessary” to carry a rifle? There were some factions that said the same about Rosa Parks – “she worked for the NAACP & was just trying to get attention. Besides, she wasn’t even really tired & coulda walked to the back of the bus and let the legitimate activists work this out through the courts.” The name calling (especially from those of us that have blogs) isn’t cool, and it’s insulting to claim exercising a Right must only be when “necessary” by their standards.

    I ask, is there any difference betwixt NJ requiring someone show “need” for a permit, and the folks that claim carrying openly or toting long guns isn’t “necessary”?

    A previous attempt to lambast a fellow gunowner that openly carried a rifle was mentioned here a few comments up. If you’ll pardon the shameless self promotion (or attention whoring) I posted about a better perspective on that situation at the following link: http://publicola.blogspot.com/2015/03/more-on-law-and-open-carry.html

    In the end, there are two teams at play here. One team doesn’t care about appearance and just wants the Right to own & carry weapons respected. The other sees it more as a privilege to be granted to those whom garner approval, or to be taken away from those that don’t. I’m not holding my breath, but I do hope one day y’all will come over to my side, where not only do we have Rights regardless of appearance, but our cookies are tastier than the ones Bloomberg, et al are slipping on y’all plate.

    Mr Ayoob, thanks for your time.

36. Remasculated, please don’t, in your zeal to denigrate police officers, try to preach law that seems ( at least to those with little education in these things ) to give credence to your biases. The police told the provocateur that the principal didn’t want him on school property ( which is well within the principal’s rights ). That makes the officer’s remarks about criminal trespass, not about carry laws. If the officers had prior knowledge that the principal did not want this individual on school property, the officers could and should arrest him for criminal trespass if he refused to leave after being informed of the principal’s desires.

    The principal may not have wanted him on property under his control because he didn’t like green eyed Irishmen, or it could be he didn’t want someone with an openly carried weapon in close proximity to the children. Whichever, it’s purely his/her decision. Sigh.

37. And Publicola, thanks for taking the time to write.

    You’ve made all your points clear, but there are a points you don’t seem to have considered.

    If paying for a license to carry is your concern, what’s wrong with permitless concealed carry, long established in Vermont and well established in Alaska and Arizona, and (though “residents only”) in Wyoming?

    Second, in the overall balance of competing harms and needs, you obviously recognized that particularly with long guns, open carry creates fear among many. Do you think we have a right to needlessly create that fear in people who have done nothing to threaten us?

38. I uneventfully and quietly OC a sidearm at all times when not at work (prohibited by my employer). My permit expired and I have no reason to pay for another one in order to exercise my right. This is pretty easy to do in Virginia, where OC is widely legal. Rifle OC is just too provocative, however I totally support rifle OC when done as a political statement in states that do not allow sidearm OC, as long as it is done in a reasonable matter.

39. Dennis: Criminal trespass? Please. It’s a public school, funded by taxpayers, therefore it falls under the state’s preemption law. The school administrators can claim all they want that they don’t want him on school property and it means nothing. He could’ve walked through the hallways of the school with a handgun on his hip and the police could’ve done nothing. Take some time, learn a little.

40. Forgot the link:

    http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/03/6_things_to_know_about_guns_in.html

41. And another one, just for Dennis:

    http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/09/so_its_legal_to_carry_a_loaded.html#incart_story_package

42. Publicola, I think you’re being too simplistic when you say that there are just “two teams” at play, based on their interpretation of the 2A. I do believe the main disagreement is about tactics and the subsequent animosities those tactics cause.

    The same constitution that enumerates our inalienable rights also designates the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all laws enacted by state or federal legislatures. Laws that the Court ( when brought before them ) deem unconstitutional become null and void and the practice that precipitated that court review becomes “constitutional”. I’m sure you are aware of this, but I mention it as a back-drop.

    The fairly recent “conservative” (5-4) Supreme Court majority is responsible for affirming the rights we are currently speaking of expanding. Need I remind you these restrictive laws were struck down by slim 5-4 decisions? The 2A advocates stand one liberal court justice away from having future restrictive laws affirmed, setting us back for years. Rest assured, if enough people who could care less of our right to carry in any form or fashion, raise enough hell with the various state legislatures, some of these lawmakers will enact laws to restrict the 2A in a manner that doesn’t appear to be in conflict with past SC decisions (to my knowledge “open carry” has yet to be addressed by the SC). If so, by the time a new, repressive law winds its way through the appeals system, a liberal majority may well be in place, removing that protection from gun owners in those states that currently enjoy it. In your face, my rights are more important than yours, tactics, only make this scenario more likely IMHO.
    I don’t see confrontational tactics endearing your movement to legislators. Many states have newly elected conservative governors and legislative bodies who are actively addressing these concerns, bad press resulting from the antics of “activists” can only make their task harder.

    But, if you can’t live with this process, there is always anarchy and revolution available, but I can’t see you getting much support on this blog.

43. Yet another one for Dennis:

    An OCer walks into a Michigan public high school with a handgun on his hip. School administrators are gobsmacked to learn it is lawful and that they cannot prevent him from doing it again:

    http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/03/parents_and_gun_advocates_spea.html

    Criminal trespass…lol

44. Further edification for the readers here: Over two years ago, the Michigan State Police sent out a legal update to all Michigan LE agencies stating that open-carry in public schools by CPL-holders was lawful. Apparently, the cop in the video didn’t get the memo…or he was lying. Either one is unacceptable.

45. I am a CHL license holder in TX. I’m not opposed to open carry, but personally feel that there is no tactical advantage to it. Therefore I’m not particularly interested in it, nor do I have any interest in being or being around dicks like the one on the video.

46. LOL, I recognise about four people in that photo! Hi Mas from Jamie, your article is excellent and points out the need for common sense. As someone who lives in rural AZ, open carry is more prevelant than in most places, yet you seldom see anyone OC. I very rarely open carry myself unless I’m out in the wilds or teaching at the range.

    We just did a big clean up with Game and Fish. I open carried mainly because everyone else with me was a law officer of one sort or another and was carrying and I didn’t want to be the only one without a visible gun! LOL. But when I went back to town I pulled a cover shirt over my 1911.

47. Mr. Ayoob,
    Nothing wrong with carrying concealed at all, as long as it’s a person’s choice, not the government’s. Ideally Constitutional carry should be respected in every state, & by that I mean no permit or license or other requirements for carrying a weapon (not just a handgun) openly or concealed at the individual’s discretion. Arguing the merits of open or concealed carry as a practice (& there are pros & cons to both) should involve no more appeals to law than any discussion about which gun for T-rex.

    But it’s not paying for a license that’s my main objection (although there were times when I couldn’t have afforded one if I wanted to sip that flavor of kool-aid). It’s the idea that the state forces people to get approval for exercising a Right. If such a system were imposed for choosing a religion, or transporting religious materials, or writing a book about politics, or 17th century Bavarian pastoral sonatas, I’d hope (hope) most people here would object to the over reach by government. Prior restraint in any form is incompatible with a proper understanding of the 1rst amendment. I see no reason why the same standards should not apply to the 2nd. A Right isn’t something anyone should require permission for.

    Openly carrying any firearm, handgun or long gun, will be disquieting to some folks that witness it. Some folks are also disturbed by knowing that folks in the same room may be carrying concealed. But no one else’s emotions trump my Rights. Or yours. Or anyone else’s.

    I blame FDR. That “freedom from fear” bs was nonsensical before he spoke the lie. It’s caught on to some extent even where it shouldn’t. & most folks, even well intentioned ones, don’t properly understand what a Right is & how it functions.

    We don’t have a “right to create fear”, but nor do we have an obligation to not cause fear. Fear is an independent function that is removed from Rights, just as melancholy is. If someone is 6’4″, 225 lbs & walks into the room scowling, should the law compel them to smile lest they cause someone fear? When you start basing your Rights on other people’s emotions you’ll soon find yourself living in a very small world.

    A Right is something that a person may do or attempt that should not be interfered with through the use of force or coercion. It is necessary not for survival (though in some cases it’s damn useful) but for an individual’s growth. Owning property (including self-ownership), contracting, trade, speaking freely, self education, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, self defense and the owning & carrying of weapons are all basic, inherent Rights that every human being has. Which ones should be tempered, or reduced, or eliminated based on someone else’s emotional response?

    In Colorado there’s a bill making it’s way through the legislature to criminalize “cyber bullying”. Some of the examples they cite are truly cruel and mean spirited speech. But it’d be just as wrong to criminalize that speech because it hurt someone else’s feelings as it would to criminalize open carry in any form because it made someone feel uncomfortable.

    From what I gather you think it’s better for people to just carry concealed, and you don’t think carrying long guns openly is a good idea. & that’s cool. It really is. I’d probably agree with a few points you’d make along those lines. & in happier times I’d list reason why I dislike AR’s, & Glocks, & 1911’s, & single-point slings. But if you were carrying an AR on a single point sling, or Glock, or 1911 & got static for it from a cop, my objections to your method of carry would be immaterial. Hell, if we were alone I wouldn’t even chastise you for your poodle shooting ways; I’d speak up in favor of your Right to carry whatever you chose in whatever manner you chose, because even if I thought you were the biggest jerk in the world, I cannot protect my Rights if I fail to protect yours.

    & I have to admit, asking someone as verbose as I am two questions was mighty brave of ya 🙂

48. Dennis,
    If it was private property, such as a person’s yard or a business’ parking lot, I’d agree with ya. But a school is government property & a principal is a public servant, just as teachers & cops & the clerks at the DMV are. No one in government should be allowed to discriminate, especially when it involves government property.

49. Remasculated, Publicola: I know this issue is near and dear to both of you and I have no doubt that the laws and interpretations of same that Remasculated linked are true depictions. My problem is with premise that somehow strapping on sidearm/slinging up a rifle makes someone immune to all trespass laws or the ability of school administrators to control ingress to school property. Can one be excluded for the carrying of a weapon only. No. Does the act of carrying a weapon exempt that person from all other reasons he might be barred from entry? If so, Michigan has some seriously screwed up laws.

    I’ll go out on a limb here, I would hope that even in Michigan, a school principal could deny entry to school property, someone who, in his opinion, was mentally unbalanced, someone who, let’s say, confronts police officers and verbally assaults them. Does this right go away if that person is openly carrying a weapon? Does the act of carrying a weapon suddenly confer an immunity from other actions that normally would not be tolerated on school grounds?

    Again, we are back to optics. Is in your face/”screw you I’m exercising my rights” a good tactic? One of the links Remasculated provided indicates there is an effort underway in the Michigan Legislature to “close this loop-hole”. I’m going to guess that if that happens, it can be blamed, at least in part, on episodes like that depicted in the video. If it does, congratulations, it shouldn’t take over 10-15 years to get the new, restrictive, law reversed.

50. I was wrong above when I stated that the Michigan State Police had sent out a legal update over two years ago to LE agencies regarding lawful open-carry in schools (and other places) by CPL-holders. It was over FOUR years ago:

    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

    Way to be on top of the law Officer Friendly in the video.

Comments are closed.