Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[Cylinder]

Gun rights advocate here.

Doesn't my open carry tell a potential perp to shoot me first?

That's a tactical question. Certainly LEOs demonstrate that the government agreres to some exent that ease-of-access outweighs stealth. I'm not an absolutist and am generally favorable to reasonable restriction. However, the thought that what one perceives as good public policy outweighs the rights protected by the constitution is abhorrent.

The problem with reasonable restriction is that the government has shown time and time again that it will be used not to serve a specific legitimate governmental concern - instead it will be used to chip away at the core freedom. That's the clearly-articulated goal.

I live in a small southern town. We have what we refer to as "the square" which is a couple of blocks of commercial real estate - usually built around a courthouse - where the city's business is conducted, people go to the banks, etc... If the city wanted to prohibit openly carried firearms in that area, I wouldn't have a huge objection - kind of like the same way I wouldnt object to the government arresting someone standing in a public place in front of a business exersicing free speech in a manner that materially disrupted the business owner's right to conduct that business.

I'm an adult citizen. I've never been convicted of a criminal offense. I've served honorably in the Armed Forces. I'm employed and provide for my family. I've taught hunter education and firearm safety courses sans payment. I've passed background checks for firearm purchase. I've applied for my carry permit, taken the course and can carry concealed. However, I am restricted from openly wearing a holstered weapon, even to go to a freind's house to shoot or any of a myriad of legitimate reasons to possess a firearm.

 

[Cylinder]

It does, classically at least. It was the title for the king of Rome. Then Rome decided it did not like kings and formed a republic.

Call me a snob, but classical means Greek, not Latin. A tyrant is a person who usurps legitimate rule. T Rex is terrible lizard king.

 

[Cylinder]

Second amendment says arms not guns. People just decided that what it said was stupid and what it mentioned was something else.

The constitution did not protect the right to keep and carry guns. Guns are cannon - especially naval cannon. The founders knew about explosives, they knew about crew-served weapons, the understood the difference between shot and shell, etc...

They protected arms, which was well-understood (and still is in the military) to mean individual, man portable weapons like the type that would be found on an individual infantry or cavalry soldier.

This doesn't include nukes, artillery, bombs, death rays, etc...

 

[NewtonTrino]

I don't have a particular problem with open carry but I wouldn't do it myself unless I was in a war zone or on a frontier.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Call me a snob, but classical means Greek, not Latin. A tyrant is a person who usurps legitimate rule. T Rex is terrible lizard king.

No tyrant lizard king. And classical generally means prechristian in the sense of the ancient world. Latin is just as good as greek in that regard.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The constitution did not protect the right to keep and carry guns. Guns are cannon - especially naval cannon. The founders knew about explosives, they knew about crew-served weapons, the understood the difference between shot and shell, etc...

They protected arms, which was well-understood (and still is in the military) to mean individual, man portable weapons like the type that would be found on an individual infantry or cavalry soldier.

This doesn't include nukes, artillery, bombs, death rays, etc...

So the IRA can lay down arms and keep up a bombing campaign because bombs are not arms?

You seem to have rather eccentric definitions for words.

 

[crimresearch]

The constitution did not protect the right to keep and carry guns. Guns are cannon - especially naval cannon. The founders knew about explosives, they knew about crew-served weapons, the understood the difference between shot and shell, etc...

They protected arms, which was well-understood (and still is in the military) to mean individual, man portable weapons like the type that would be found on an individual infantry or cavalry soldier.

This doesn't include nukes, artillery, bombs, death rays, etc...

The word 'arms' at the end of the Revolutionary War meant cannons, chain shot, enfilade guns, and anything else used by the armies of the era. It was chosen over 'firearms', 'small arms' et al. to be the most inclusive term.

Arms: implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons system, blazon

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arms?s=t

 

[ponderingturtle]

The word 'arms' at the end of the Revolutionary War meant cannons, chain shot, enfilade guns, and anything else used by the armies of the era. It was chosen over 'firearms', 'small arms' et al. to be the most inclusive term.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arms?s=t

And of course in early america owning cannon and such were legal. Not common due to expense but legal.

 

[BStrong]

The constitution did not protect the right to keep and carry guns. Guns are cannon - especially naval cannon. The founders knew about explosives, they knew about crew-served weapons, the understood the difference between shot and shell, etc...

They protected arms, which was well-understood (and still is in the military) to mean individual, man portable weapons like the type that would be found on an individual infantry or cavalry soldier.

This doesn't include nukes, artillery, bombs, death rays, etc...

That's the classic strawman argument that gun prohibitionists often trot out - "If you think people should carry pistols, why not Atomic Bombs?"

When I want to blow somebodies mind, I point such folks to:

http://www.mvtf.org/

Jacques Littlefield had quite a collection. I became aquainted with him through his Independence Day tradition of bringing out a cannon or artillery piece of some sort and firing it on the range where I'm a member.

Big fun.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I suppose this begs the question of who it was that lost?

Those roving gangs of blacks and Mexicans that you see in the Charles Bronson pictures.

 

[Cylinder]

The word 'arms' at the end of the Revolutionary War meant cannons, chain shot, enfilade guns, and anything else used by the armies of the era. It was chosen over 'firearms', 'small arms' et al. to be the most inclusive term.

It's my opinion at least that the founders would have used the term arms to the exclusion of things like crew-served weapons. You can find this meaning in things like colonial or militia musters, where cannon and arms (or men in arms) would be counted seperately. I do agree that it was common practice for townships to posees a crew-served for use by the militia but this was seen as a collective - not individual - possesion. Most of those weapons were war surplus or purchased with various sources of local funds.

I don't have a great set of bookmarks on this computer, but I'll try to post some later, but this meaning can be quickly seen in the Articles:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

There you can glean an example of the subtle difference in the term armed - which would include things like crew-served weapons - and arms - which would not.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Gun rights advocate here.

Doesn't my open carry tell a potential perp to shoot me first?

Good point!

 

[Cylinder]

And of course in early america owning cannon and such were legal. Not common due to expense but legal.

There's a fundemental difference between being legal and being protected. It is quite legal for me, for instance, to buy products from a out-of-state distributor but nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from infringing on that practice.

It's still legal in many states to own smooth bore cannon, but I don't interpret that as a protected right.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And crime-enablers, AKA gun-control leftists.

Except when gun control laws were introduced in Australia:

There is contention over the effects of the gun control laws in Australia, with some researchers reporting significant drops in gun-related crime, and others reporting no significant effect in gun related or overall crime rates

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control
So no increase but debate whether there is a decrease.
So please demonstrate that tough gun control laws result in higher crime levels

Not all crime is gun crime. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens raise the downside of burglary, robbery, rape, and non-firearm assault. I recommend John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The constitution did not protect the right to keep and carry guns. Guns are cannon - especially naval cannon. The founders knew about explosives, they knew about crew-served weapons, the understood the difference between shot and shell, etc...

They protected arms, which was well-understood (and still is in the military) to mean individual, man portable weapons like the type that would be found on an individual infantry or cavalry soldier.

This doesn't include nukes, artillery, bombs, death rays, etc...

I would not be so sure. Article I, section 8: "Congress shall have power to...grant letters of marque and reprisal..."
A letter or marque authorizes the owner of a warship to make war in the name of that government. It makes the difference between a privateer and a pirate. Sir Frances Drake operated under a secret letter of marque from the British government.
Full auto? Hell, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention expected that private citizens (shipping firms, more likely) would own warships.

 

[Xulld]

Gun rights advocate here.

Doesn't my open carry tell a potential perp to shoot me first?

No, the studies conducted by the FBI show that the vast majority of criminals do not want a shoot out at all, and really would rather not kill anyone. In those studies criminals were surveyed and over 90% admitted that if they saw a firearm, they would either call off the planned crime, or wait until that person had left.

Even in cases were the criminal anticipates armed resistance, as is the case with armed guards in banks, they would rather disarm the guard by ambush than kill him.

Anyone who is going to open carry a firearm needs to prepare for gun retention and needs to have higher levels of situational awareness, but there is no evidence to show that open carry advocates are more likely to be attacked, or to be shot at, in fact the evidence tends to show it is a deterrent.

I personally carried an openly holstered firearm in North Carolina for almost 2 years while I was up there training a team of technicians. I had absolutely no problems either with police or individuals during that time. In fact I have nothing but good things to say about the Raleigh, Garner, and Clayton police departments.

 

[Ranb]

Open carry won't last long though.

Open carry has never been illegal in WA as far as I know. I have read on occasion that some people walking around town with a handgun strapped to their hip have had the police called on them. Something about allegedly disturbing the peace.

Ranb

 

[Resume]

No, the studies conducted by the FBI show that the vast majority of criminals do not want a shoot out at all, and really would rather not kill anyone. In those studies criminals were surveyed and over 90% admitted that if they saw a firearm, they would either call off the planned crime, or wait until that person had left.

I hope you allow me to be skeptical as to the testimony of a surveyed criminal. Just a scoche. A tad.

 

[crimresearch]

There's a fundemental difference between being legal and being protected. It is quite legal for me, for instance, to buy products from a out-of-state distributor but nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from infringing on that practice.

It's still legal in many states to own smooth bore cannon, but I don't interpret that as a protected right.

But the US Supreme Court settled all that semantic quibbling in their Heller ruling.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

They address the fact that there is an upper limit on weapons of war as in the case of an atomic bomb, or aircraft carrier, but they specifically do not rule out weapons of the kind in common use.

 

[Cylinder]

Open carry has never been illegal in WA as far as I know. I have read on occasion that some people walking around town with a handgun strapped to their hip have had the police called on them. Something about allegedly disturbing the peace.

Ranb

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. There was no widespread panic, mass shootings, cats-n-dogs sleeping together, etc when other states reaffirmed open carry. When I was young Arkansas had no prohibition on open carry and it was not uncommon to see holstered handguns in public during hunting season. I used to carry a holstered firearm when I was seventeen camping, etc..