The Right To Openly Carry Guns In Public Places

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

The Right To Openly Carry Guns In Public Places
posted with permission from http://sane-ramblings.blogspot.com/2010/03/right-to-openly-carry-guns-into-public.html

In a sign many Americans feel powerless as economic events threaten them, some gun owners are openly carrying their weapons into public places such as restaurants and stores, claiming it's their right to do so.

But what about the rights of the rest of us? Should we be subject to the potential threat of a loaded gun? And if so, should there be any limitation on the kinds of guns and how many can be carried. For example, is a machine gun acceptable? How about shoulder carried anti-aircraft weapons?

Should there be any restrictions on the public places the guns can be carried? For now they're being holstered and worn in stores and restaurants, but how about in schools? Court houses? Police stations? Post Offices? Court rooms? Airports? Banks? Bars? Restaurants that have bars? Office towers and other places of employment?

In any case, how does society benefit by this? Does this make us safer? And isn't it a threat to those we have selected to keep us safe, police officers?

I suggest so called "open-carry" guns be kept only in the hands of law enforcement officers and others we as a civilized society may designate, as a means of keeping everyone safe.

[OHdem10]

1. The Right has taken over and it really matters not one whit what

anyone else may think????(a bit of sarcasm)

[sui generis]

2. funny thing - news interviewed an open-carry gun-whackadoodle

after Perry's speech, and she said "The second right is really important to Americans, because . . . we do things differently here in Texas".

A does not = B lady. I think some gun owners just prove who gun laws were made for.

I personally don't care who has a gun at kindergarten, bars, and church - I have always thought the government should stamp "I'm a paranoid gun obsessed person" on those kinds of people, but if they prefer to do it themselves for everyone to see, then fine with me.

There are sane, reasonable rational gun owners, and I mostly think the two sets don't intersect.

[DissedByBush]

63. Of course they interviewed a whackadoodle

Do you think they'd interview an intelligent, well-spoken person?

Of course not. They don't like guns and are out to demonize open carry.

Even if I'm wrong on that count it doesn't make for good TV.

Why do you think after a tornado they always put the crazy lady who lost her trailer on TV?

It's not likely the whole area is filled with crazy ladies.

Better entertainment.

[sui generis]

65. good observation

I was entertained. :P But I don't think the media is out to demonize open-carry so much as openly puzzled by it.

I support the second amendment as an American, but if it were my country and I was the emperor there would be no second amendment, and American tourists would have to leave their guns at home in America.

[DissedByBush]

70. They usually just demonize weapons in general

I'm not sure if it's a concerted effort or just pure ignorance.

The fact that almost every article about guns contains at least one factual error leads me to believe the press is just ignorant.

The fact that they often contain distortions leads me to believe it's a concerted effort.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

4. I'm with you . . .

[cowman]

5. You can't trump

a right just because people don't like it. I don't like what the RW says but they have a RIGHT to say it. My carrying a gun is no threat to anyone except some asshole of a criminal leaves me absolutly no choice but to defend myself. I carry all the time where I live and the stores welcome us with open arms because they trust law abiding citizens. This whole myth of "blood in the streets" is just that, a myth.

[Golden Raisin]

12. Speech and gun-toting are

comparing apples and oranges (and I heartily and completely agree with you on protecting the right of free speech, no matter how ugly or disagreeable, in what's left of this country.) I live in Manhattan and I shudder to think what would happen if people started appearing on rush-hour subway trains carrying visible heat.

[cowman]

13. If they

are law abiding citizens there should be no problem, but then again I live in the wide open west where we are almost expected to carry a firearm.

[TPaine7]

15. Free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and...

freedom of religion and the right to remain silent are apples and oranges and pears and cantaloupes.

So what?

And if your point is that carrying guns kills people, that is simply untrue. SHOOTING PEOPLE with guns kills people.

Similarly, having freedom of speech doesn't lead to death, instigating mob action and revealing military secrets and conspiring to commit murder lead to death.

The solution?

Forbid shooting people with guns (without justification), instigating mob action, revealing military secrets and conspiring to commit murder.

[PavePusher]

18. Open Carry happens in Phoenix and Salt Lake and Tucson and....

And we seem to have no end of peaceful, law abiding Citizens not going on murderous rampages.

Perhaps the people in Manhatten are not as reliable. Go figure. (For the record, I have relatives there and I visit occasionally. Very unConstitutional place...)

[gorfle]

72. Why?

I live in Manhattan and I shudder to think what would happen if people started appearing on rush-hour subway trains carrying visible heat.

Are you a good, upstanding citizen? Would you be harmful to others if you were on a subway carrying a firearm?

[damntexdem]

23. Your carrying a gun IS a threat.

First, those who rob using guns need not shoot -- the 'use' is in having the gun as a threat, not necessarily in its use.

Further, a major danger is that the gun will be taken and used by a baddie. And that fact that you have it may be an attraction, not a deterrent, to a baddie's doing so.

Finally, if I see you openly carrying your gun in a public place, how do I know that you are not a whackadoodle who will start spewing bullets at all and sundry? That fact that you openly carry in a public place greatly increases the odds that you are such a whackadoodle. Your assurance otherwise is just not good enough.

[X_Digger]

25. Have any facts to back any of that kertwaddle?

When's the last (hell how about a first) time someone took a gun from someone open carrying?

When's the last time an open carrying 'whackadoodle' started 'spewing bullets at all and sundry'?

[shadowrider]

27. There are thousands of articles

that prove whackadoodles spew bullets at the drop of a hat dontchaknow.

Shucks, I can't find any at the moment but they gotta be there cause so many people say it's happened.

:sarcasm:

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

33. Care to comment about it being a threat?....

The comment you replied to makes a very good point.

[cowman]

34. My comment is

that I don't have to prove to you or anyone that I am not a threat. In all the years I have been carrying a gun I have never pulled it and started spewing bullets. Once again, the problem is yours not mine. If you don't like that answer, tough shit

[X_Digger]

38. Nope, not a threat..

Carrying any tool, no matter how dangerous, is not a threat in and of itself.

Criminals use the threat of injuring you with a gun, yes, to get your compliance. But it's the stated or implied intent to use it against you that is the threat, not the weapon per se.

To assert otherwise is animistic.

[paulsby]

47. i live in an open carry state (WA) and been a cop here a long time

i have NEVER heard of an open carryer having his gun taken away. well, except for a cop or two . one got his gun taken away by a naked deranged man high on crack. the cop HAD to approach the man and try to detain him. the average citizen open carrying wouldn't have had to approach the man at all.

[Tim01]

26. You are incredibly uneducated about this subject. Unbelievable. nt

[cowman]

28. Well you

know what? That's your problem not mine, I have a double retention holster and I do know how to keep my gun from being taken away. Unfortunatly the "baddies" often do shoot just because they are "baddies". The fact that I do sometimes carry open can be a deterrent to the "baddies" and personally I don't give a shit if you think I'm a "whackadoddle, like I said, that's your problem not mine

[cowman]

29. And one

other thing, I don't have to assure you of anything

[slackmaster]

32. Concealed carry laws have been objectified in some states for more than 25 years

All the fears you have parroted here have failed to materialize.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Inline

First, those who rob using guns need not shoot -- the 'use' is in having the gun as a threat, not necessarily in its use.

The IMPLICATION of using a firearm in a crime that you make visible in any way, without even having it in your hand, is brandishing. So this is already illegal. Not brandishing, is not a threat.


Further, a major danger is that the gun will be taken and used by a baddie. And that fact that you have it may be an attraction, not a deterrent, to a baddie's doing so.

Your only interesting point. Police officers are often killed with their own weapons for this reason. This is why I personally prefer concealed carry, though I do not oppose open carry if others want to.


Finally, if I see you openly carrying your gun in a public place, how do I know that you are not a whackadoodle who will start spewing bullets at all and sundry? That fact that you openly carry in a public place greatly increases the odds that you are such a whackadoodle. Your assurance otherwise is just not good enough.

Since ANYONE can conceal a weapon, this point is meaningless. Wearing a weapon openly in no way increases the risk of any of this, over a person wearing a weapon concealed.

[X_Digger]

44. One quibble..

A grand total of four officers were killed with their own weapon in 2008.. I wouldn't exactly call that 'often'.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/data/table_14.html

[paulsby]

48. the police officer reference is true, but it's not relevant to normal open carry

cops HAVE to go into "tense situations" (to quote repo man) with their openly carried guns and use LESS THAN LETHAL FORCE (arm bars, etc.) that makes them vulnerable to assault and gun takeaways. your average joe openly carrying does NOT, and for that matter SHOULD not. and most don;t.

most cops who have their gun taken away, see it happen either when trying to detain a mentally deranged person (happened to a local cop who had to try to detain a naked man, high on crack, standing in the middle of a busy intersection, or during some sort of arrest situation etc. that an average person wouldn't have to deal with.

we HAVE to go hands on. we make THOUSANDS of arrests for every time we have to shoot our gun (the average cop fires his gun line of duty about once every 12 yrs iirc). every single time we go hands on, the risk is there. the average open carrier is not tasked with having to make physical arrests, chase down bad guys and place them in cuffs. etc.

just saying the dynamics are different.

there are some calls i go to where i wish i COULD disarm before going hands on (it's against dept. policy so i don't)

for example, the other day we had to wrestle a deranged teenager into handcuffs for a mental commitment. she had recently got out of a mental hospital, and that evening was throwing everything itn ehhouse around and had bitten her mother.

the LAST time cops tried to invol her she gave one of them a nasty bite and it took 3 of them about 5 minutes to actually get her into cuffs. the whole time they were wrestling with her, the gun take away was of course a concern.

of course, on this occasion, it was me (a competitive strength athlete) and one of my partners (265 lbs and strong as fuck) and it wasn't difficult to get her into cuffs. but i would have GLADLY disarmed prior to entering the house IF i could have.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. It's also a matter of initative.

Officers receive training that helps them look for someone who is trying to get close, to gain an advantage before hostilities are announced. Most people who just carry, have never had the sort of training GunSite or any of the other personal defense courses offer. Certainly not weapons retention training. Even then, sometimes an officer is taken, from someone close enough to grab for their weapon, before even an alert officer can react.

Looks like the numbers are down though, with the post above yours. The FBI used to publish that data regularly, and the numbers were higher. For a few years they either weren't publishing it to the public, or it was very hard to find. Good to see the numbers are down.


Another officer I know always says, when he responds to a call, he always responds as though there's a weapon involved. Because there is; his own.

[paulsby]

62. that's a basic tenet

every call you go to is a gun call. yours at a minimum

of course i work in an area and a state where LOTs of people have guns. guns are of course not the problem. seattle for instance is a relatively large city in a right to carry state and has quite low violent crime, lower in many respects across the same demographics (age, gender, race, etc.) as vancouver, ca where guns are not carried legally except by cops.

my point is ALMOST always, a bad guy tries to get a cop's gun in the courseof the cop trying to detain./arrest that person, SO they can escape.

that situation almost never presents itself to an average citizen.

bad guys do NOT attack police out of the blue just to get their gun. they can get guns easily enough.

so, open carriers ALSO (i see no reason to believe) are not going to be attacked by bad guys intent on getting their guns. it would complete idiocy for a bad guy to do so, to attack an armed person merely to get his gun, when they can buy one easily enough with no witnesses (apart from the fence

i am sure it HAS happened, but i can't ever recall hearing of a case where a guy just grabbed a cop's gun, where it WASN'T some sort of arrest, etc. situation.

that's why i think the probability of open carriers seeing people trying to take their guns is going to be swimmingly rare.

and fwiw, if somebody tries to take your gun, that's a totally justified deadly force application.

by trying to take your gun, they are giving you (more than) reasonable cause to believe they are intent on causing serious bodily injury or death (3/4 of the time a guy takes a cop's gun, it is used against the cop).

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Crooks aren't completely, totally, stupid.

They know that if they make a habit of attacking openly armed people, that they will very quickly get shot. Maybe not on the first time, but definately before the tenth the will lose. And it has a high chance of being a permenant loss.

How often do you see criminals target police officers for assault/robbery?

In real life, crooks prefer to avoid armed citizens.

[TPaine7]

6. I draw the line at anything more powerful than my portable planet buster

But what about the rights of the rest of us? Should we be subject to the potential threat of a loaded gun? And if so, should there be any limitation on the kinds of guns and how many can be carried. For example, is a machine gun acceptable? How about shoulder carried anti-aircraft weapons?

I draw the line at any thing more powerful than a molecular disruptor--the high-tech, super secret weapon that can destroy planet earth. It is man portable, and is definitely an arm we should be able to keep and bear. I will agree, however, that the reality disruptors--developmental weapons with the ability to destroy the solar system, and potentially galaxies and galaxy clusters--are beyond the pale and should not be used defensively.

And don't worry, I carry my personal planet buster on stun--it will only destroy a few neighborhoods.





PS: if you or the "sane-ramblings" author actually care where the lines are set in America, read Heller. And the idea that police officers will keep you (or me) safe is about as credible as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

14. First of all it's "they're" not "their" (a contraction of 'they are')...

secondly, who is "lashing out with insults and hate"??

"Kind of pathetic" score one insult from you.

[cowman]

16. Kind of pathetic

is not an insult, it's a truth., Whether you like it or not, your side is losing the gun rights debate and the more losses your side incurs, the more desperate they become and the more shrill and emotional the comments become. Just listen to some of the comments from the VPC or the Brady Bunch. My gun is no threat to anyone but a dumbass criminal who would leave me no choice but to defend myself. I open or conceal carry because it is my right as an law abiding citizen and I take exception at anyone trying to tell me that I am dangerous or try to take away that right.

[dashrif]

61. How

can you type with your pinkie fingers out straight like that, wow that is some talent?




Would you feel like ofi ishki if english was that persons second language?

[paulsby]

49. are you marvin the martian ? nt

[TPaine7]

57. *shhhhhhhhh!!!!*

A word the wise: I have a planet buster that can vaporize a city on setting 3. I know you're a Seattle cop. I'm a sterotypical strapped lunatic of Brady fantasy--I don't worry about trifles like collateral damage. Unless it's MARTIAN collateral damage, of course.

Do the math.

[paulsby]

59. that little fucker

scared the hell out of me.

those WB cartoons didn't mess around.

[Euromutt]

67. I know for a fact TPaine7 only uses Acme Destructo Co. products!

As used by Duck Dodgers (in the 24½th century). Marvin, by contrast, only uses A-1 brand weaponry.

[paulsby]

68. i am humbled by your nerd cred

all hail

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. To hell with you and your namby-pamby PPB, I'm keeping my gamma ray burster

You can have it when you pry it from my cold, irradiated hand. BWAHAHA!


Remember, only you can prevent life 6500 light-years away:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090403-gamma-ray-extinction.html

[shadowrider]

7. So

"I suggest so called "open-carry" guns be kept only in the hands of law enforcement officers and others we as a civilized society may designate, as a means of keeping everyone safe."

That would be a true statement IF you had a policeman with you 24/7/365 and you don't. The police are under no obligation to "protect", they do, however, have an obligation to attempt to solve your homicide.

Me? I'd rather put up a fight.

[safeinOhio]

17. I've known a bunch of LEOs and none

would ever think of open carry off duty. They all carry concealed off duty. Must be a reason.

[PavePusher]

22. Yes, they are LEO's.

And they do NOT get to set the tone for exercise of Civil Rights.

Must be a reason.

[shadowrider]

30. That is THEIR choice and mine

But if someone wants to carry openly, I have no problem with that, it's their right.

[paulsby]

51. most cops the LAST thing we want to do off duty is draw attention to ourselves

or get recognized as an off duty LEO.

carrying openly would greatly increase that risk.

regardless, in many states, including my own (WA state), most cops i know support the right of those who open carry

[Tim01]

8. Same argument homophobes use.

All of this awful stuff that could happen, but actually doesn't.

"Why should I have to see a couple of guys kissing at a restaurant? What about MY rights?"


"What if the guy with a gun suddenly becomes a homicidal maniac?" "Why should I have to see something that makes me uncomfortable?"

This complaint is getting to be kind if ridiculous.

[onehandle]

35. 'All of this awful stuff that could happen, but actually doesn't.'

I've never seen homosexuality mow down 22 people in a McDonalds.

[cowman]

36. ?????????

[cowman]

37. Yeah and guess what?

If just one law abiding person had been armed that day maybe, just maybe, the carnage would have been much, much less

[AtheistCrusader]

43. I've never seen a lawfully open carrying individual mow down 22 people in a McD's either.

I'm pretty sure open carry wasn't even legal there/then so your point is completely irrelevant to the question of lawful open carry.

[slackmaster]

9. What an ignorant twit

The guy lives in California. Open carry of loaded weapons is illegal here without a permit.

Machine guns and anti-aircraft guns are de facto banned, and carrying them loaded would also be illegal.

The guy lists a whole bunch of places where weapons are illegal in all states, like post offices.

[safeinOhio]

19. I do not think having a different opinion than yours

makes some one an "ignorant twit". I suggest being more civil in trying to make a point and you'll get it across better.

[slackmaster]

31. His knowledge of the law is clearly deficient, based on what he wrote!

He could have looked it up, but he didn't bother.

[TheWraith]

69. Being ignorant of the law does, in fact, make one ignorant.

And acting like you're espousing a learned opinion on something when you in fact haven't bothered to engage in the most trivial factfinding--such as a Google search--makes one, if not a twit, then at the very least a jackass.

[Tim01]

21. I guess you shouldn't call him a twit even though he is incredibly ignorant. nt

[ManiacJoe]

11. So much ignorance is just a small space. Unrec.

Wish I could say I am surprised.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. You can tell someone terribly ignorant wrote this. Why? ...

This mini article contains 19 questions and 2 statements.
There is one opening observation and one conclusion.

Perhaps if this bloke weren't so confused and ignorant he wouldn't have ramble on to distract readers from the fact he has no idea what he's talking about. My guess he doesn't have a concrete argument or leg to stand on in defense of his conclusion (it's actually a baseless opinion, I feel terrible giving him credit for coming to a "conclusion") so he resorts to "carpet-bombing" the reader with questions he thinks are somehow clever. :eyes:

This article reeks of anti-RKBA desperation.

[X_Digger]

24. It's "Deep Gun Thoughts with Jack Handey" n/t

[benEzra]

39. You might start by familiarizing yourself with the National Firearms Act...

which draws the line between weapons that are readily available to civilians (NFA Title 1), and weapons that are restricted to military/government use (NFA Title 2). Title 1 civilian guns are non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber, plus shotguns. Machineguns and shoulder-fired missiles are as tightly controlled as 500-lb bombs and howitzers, and nobody is seriously trying to change that.

The use of misinformed hyperbole is a big part of why the U.S. gun control lobby is now in the sorry state it's in. You might want to reevaluate that approach.

[Euromutt]

40. You have the right not to BE threatened, but not the right not to FEEL threatened

As far as the law is concerned, whether someone is threatening you with a weapon depends entirely on that person's actions; their conduct, to paraphrase the Revised Code of Washington, has to manifest an intent to intimidate, and doing so with any weapon "apparently capable of producing bodily harm" is a gross misdemeanor in the state of Washington.

But if a person is not actively trying to threaten/intimidate you, and yet you feel threatened/intimidated anyway, that is entirely your problem.

I find it curious how the proponents of increased gun control on this forum (and elsewhere) continuously assert that you have to be suffering from some irrational, paranoid fear to carry a firearm for self-defense, but do not consider it irrational, paranoid and/or fearful to get (or feign) an attack of the vapors at the mere sight of a holstered handgun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. +1 I am *so* going to quote your last sentence n/t

[Euromutt]

58. I thought I'd borrowed it from you :P

I'm pretty certain I'm not first person on this forum to make that observation, anyway.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. All of your questions are already addressed by various state laws.

Such as 'machine guns' and AA weapons.

In the state of Washington, the answer to the Machine Gun question is 'no'. Other states may vary.

[Glassunion]

45. I think I hit all of the points. An “all in one” reply…

Let me start by stating that those who open carry are a different individual than I. Personally I only carry concealed.

In a sign many Americans feel powerless as economic events threaten them, some gun owners are openly carrying their weapons into public places such as restaurants and stores, claiming it's their right to do so.

One quick point of order… I feel that the author of the story is making an implication judging from the tone of the post. That implication is that they do not have a right (legal authority to do so), that they are somehow breaking or most likely abusing the law. I’m not sure what state this author hails from, however, check your local constitution and its bill or rights (or similar). If your state expresses the right to bear arms (44 states have this), then they are indeed exercising a right. They are not somehow breaking or abusing any law or right. They are just exercising a right as defined by law.

But what about the rights of the rest of us?

Not one of any of your civil rights or privileges are being violated in light of someone exercising their privileges under open-carry laws. So, that statement seems to me to be one of false outrage.

Should we be subject to the potential threat of a loaded gun?

Here we go again… Likening of an average citizen who has committed no crime to that of a criminal. Why the author seems to me to feel the need to label someone who has committed no crime whatsoever as a murderer, I don't know? I’m always amazed at the clairvoyance abilities of others. Why don’t we just lock them up now? They are mass murderers… Right?

And if so, should there be any limitation on the kinds of guns and how many can be carried. For example, is a machine gun acceptable? How about shoulder carried anti-aircraft weapons?

Nothing like a story with gross exaggeration. I love it. Can someone enlighten me as to any open-carry laws that allow for the carry of class-III firearms? How about anti-aircraft weapons?

Should there be any restrictions on the public places the guns can be carried? For now they're being holstered and worn in stores and restaurants, but how about in schools? Court houses? Police stations? Post Offices? Court rooms? Airports? Banks? Bars? Restaurants that have bars? Office towers and other places of employment?

There are restrictions on the public places that guns can be carried. So I guess that answers that.

In any case, how does society benefit by this? Does this make us safer? And isn't it a threat to those we have selected to keep us safe, police officers?

Hmmm… First question… I think that society can benefit from open carry. Two words… Waffle House. Second question… I think so. And to the last question I don’t think it places our law enforcement officers in any more danger than they already are from the general public.

I suggest so called "open-carry" guns be kept only in the hands of law enforcement officers and others we as a civilized society may designate, as a means of keeping everyone safe.

Well… There are a couple of ways to look at this last statement. One way is that I look at it as a bit totalitarian to the point of treason for something to be legal for the government and illegal for the people. Another way to look at it is we as a civilized society have already designated via open-carry laws those who can carry as a means of keeping everyone safe.

I guess one thing that we all need to keep in mind is that we the people of civilized society have made this legal. We have elected our lawmakers to represent us. They in turn make the laws that govern our society. So it would seem to me that a civilized society embraces an armed public.

Just sayin…

[paulsby]

46. how is it a threat to police officers?

evidence and statistics please.

i have 20 + yrs in law enforcement and have seen NO evidence open carry presents a danger to officers.

your last line is also rubbish.

law enforcement officers can't keep 'everyone safe'

the PRIMARY responsibility for one's safety lies with oneself and those close to you (family, etc.)

we are spread THIN as fuck. plus, unfortunately, some cops aren't willing to do that much to risk their own safety for others. many are phenomenal heroes, but not all.

there is no "potential threat" from a loaded gun. i have yet to see a loaded gun go off by itself.

[Glassunion]

50. Ok so this was not you then...

"i have yet to see a loaded gun go off by itself."

"Chief of Police Shawn Kannedy and two other officers were discussing firearms around 2:45 p.m. when Kannedy's weapon discharged, striking Sgt. Dan Driver in the torso."

Apparently you don't have to even be touching them. You just talk about them and guns just start shooting people all on their own. Maybe guns do kill people?

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/50255677.html

[paulsby]

52. i plead the fifth

actually, not it was not me :)

weapons can discharge when people pull the trigger unintentionally (like somebody drops the gun and then reaches for it as it falls and happens to depress the trigger as they grab it in the wrong place, etc.) but i'm not aware of any modern handguns having the ability to discharge without somebody or something depressing the trigger.

maybe it is remotely possible with some makes. i can say it is physically impossible with the glocks, by design.

[Glassunion]

53. actually

My wife's Ruger LCP had a recall where they could unintentionally discharge if dropped.

I would agree on the Glocks. That's all I carry.

[shadowrider]

64. Same with my PT140

The striker sits below the bullet and rises into firing position as the trigger is pulled. This means it won't fire if dropped. That said, I'm NOT going to intentionally drop it to see whether or not it goes off. They call them accidents for a reason.

[Euromutt]

66. Re: open carry in establishments that serve alcohol

Okay, call me strange, but I don't see the issue with people open carrying in establishments licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises. See, unlike with concealed carriers, if a person is carrying openly, and state or local law prohibits a person in possession of a firearm from consuming alcohol, at least the serving staff have the ability to see that the person is carrying and should therefore be refused alcoholic beverages. With persons carrying concealed (legally or otherwise), how is anybody going to know?

[gorfle]

71. Where to begin?

In a sign many Americans feel powerless as economic events threaten them, some gun owners are openly carrying their weapons into public places such as restaurants and stores, claiming it's their right to do so.

Note: We are not just claiming it, it is, in fact, our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

But what about the rights of the rest of us? Should we be subject to the potential threat of a loaded gun?

Stopping law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms does nothing to stop criminals from carrying them. All it does is make the "potential threat" lie solely in the hands of criminals.

And if so, should there be any limitation on the kinds of guns and how many can be carried. For example, is a machine gun acceptable? How about shoulder carried anti-aircraft weapons?

I'm surprised they didn't mention nuclear weapons, as they usually do.

The second amendment is about small arms, not crew-served weaponry. Machine guns have been highly regulated for decades.

Should there be any restrictions on the public places the guns can be carried? For now they're being holstered and worn in stores and restaurants, but how about in schools? Court houses? Police stations? Post Offices? Court rooms? Airports? Banks? Bars? Restaurants that have bars? Office towers and other places of employment?

In my opinion, if I can safely walk down main street, while armed, surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens, there is no reason why I cannot do so in virtually any other public place, including schools, restaurants, work places, airports, banks, etc.

I do not have a problem with restricting firearms in police stations, courts of law, or government offices, for two reasons.

Firstly, these are highly emotionally-charged areas with fixed, controversial targets of high value and high risk. It would be a difficult task to screen law-abiding firearm holders in such areas from the criminals, and the consequence of failure is too high to risk it.

Secondly, these locations almost always have a dedicated, armed security staff on hand at all times to provide for the safety of all within.

In any case, how does society benefit by this?

Society benefits from the right to keep and bear arms by having the ability to resist oppression without having to wait for assistance from someone else with a gun.

Does this make us safer?

Yes.

And isn't it a threat to those we have selected to keep us safe, police officers?

Absolutely, in no uncertain terms, not. People with CCW permits are many times, often hundreds of times less likely to be involved in violent crime than your average citizen. During shootings, they have been shown to be less likely to cause collateral damage than even police officers.

Lawful citizens legally carrying firearms are no thread to police officers.

The number-one determinator as to whether or not someone is going to commit violent crimes with a firearm is past criminal history. And people with such past criminal histories cannot legally carry firearms.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20


I suggest so called "open-carry" guns be kept only in the hands of law enforcement officers and others we as a civilized society may designate, as a means of keeping everyone safe.

If you wish to place responsibility for your safety into the hands of others, I respect your right to make that choice. I hope you never end up waiting on the phone like these women:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAADW9wNvk

The simple fact of the matter is that police are almost never present when crimes are actually committed. They almost always show up after-the-fact to collect evidence and question witnesses to aid in the prosecution of the crime. But they are almost never their to actually stop crimes in progress.

If you wish to be passive in your self-defense, that is your right, and I respect your choice. I hope you will respect my choice to take an active role in self-defense.

[jeepnstein]

73. Help is on the way!

[Armed]

74. And I suggest that you keep your opinion to yourself.

"I suggest so called "open-carry" guns be kept only in the hands of law enforcement officers and others we as a civilized society may designate, as a means of keeping everyone safe".