Different perspective on OC / Constitutional Carry

[GNRPowdeR]

This article was delivered to my inbox today and thought it would be a good one to share...

 

[SSGSAD]

Whats good for "them", is BETTER for US !!!!!

 

[stephen87]

A few of the public can't even stand to see "ordinary" citizens open carrying. As far as I'm concerned, if they're allowed to carry a gun, let them carry as they wish. Just as I should be able to carry how I wish.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If one views OC as a means to intimidate others, then others open carrying maybe viewed by the intimidators as...encouraging a polite society. When the targets of your aggression are as well armed as you are, I would tend to think you might think twice about acting on it.

 

[jerrob]

I'm a bit confused. I thought "open carry" meant having an unconcealed firearm and "constitutional carry" was our second ammendment rights as worded in the constitution.
On a side note, I believe the author of that link is as pro 2A as our President.

4TH paragraph, 1ST sentence is where my understanding of the author's line of thought begins to fail me, is this a "Did you ride the bus or bring your lunch today" moment?

Someone please help me understand.

 

[EMDX6043]

4TH paragraph, 1ST sentence is where my understanding of the author's line of thought begins to fail me, is this a "Did you ride the bus or bring your lunch today" moment?

Someone please help me understand.

He's comparing apples and oranges...and needs to do some more research on what O/C and CC truly means.

Seems like he's just trying to incite some type of hypocritical, racist response from pro-2A Americans.

 

[nakinate]

I think everyone should carry a gun. What does their religion have to do with it?

 

[cbhausen]

I'm a bit confused. I thought "open carry" meant having an unconcealed firearm and "constitutional carry" was our second ammendment rights as worded in the constitution.
On a side note, I believe the author of that link is as pro 2A as our President.

4TH paragraph, 1ST sentence is where my understanding of the author's line of thought begins to fail me, is this a "Did you ride the bus or bring your lunch today" moment?

Someone please help me understand.

"Constitutional Carry" = "Permitless Carry" (i.e. "the 2A is my carry permit"...) The author muddies the waters there. And Constitutional Carry means for everyone who's a US citizen.

 

[jerrob]

"Constitutional Carry" = "Permitless Carry" (i.e. "the 2A is my carry permit"...) The author muddies the waters there. And Constitutional Carry means for everyone who's a US citizen.

Yes Sir, your definition is what I understood Constitutional Carry to be.

I guess my confusion is that I wasn't aware that some consider "Open Carry" = "Constitutional Carry". (As stated in P4,S1 of the linked article)

Thanks for the help.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

I guess my confusion is that I wasn't aware that some consider "Open Carry" = "Constitutional Carry". (As stated in P4,S1 of the linked article)

The waters are muddy, yes... He seemed to be speaking from the ill-informed or the uninformed perspective, where people (including some LEOs) believe that only LEOs are allowed to OC.

Still, this is moot, IMO. The topic he attempted to address is more about raising concerns if / when Religion is brought into the "whom should / shouldn't be allowed to carry.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think everyone should carry a gun. What does their religion have to do with it?

May I offer a slight tweak to that? "I think every free person should be able to carry a gun if s/he chooses to do so." And I agree, religion is not the issue.

"Constitutional Carry" = "Permitless Carry" (i.e. "the 2A is my carry permit"...) The author muddies the waters there. And Constitutional Carry means for everyone who's a US citizen.

Where is that defined? The Constitution specifically protects the rights of all. No laws made respecting a specific religion, abridging free speech, free press, the right of assembly. An argument might be made for the freedom to petition, as those who cannot lawfully vote have no voice to those who are voted for. Rights must exist for all or they exist for none.

Yes, he's muddying the waters. Constitutional Carry is not the same as Open Carry, but does encompass it. He does make a good point. If we were to go out and see a group of men in long, white robes (stereotypical Muslim attire) and armed with AKs and pistols, would our SA meters not peg to the right? What about the New Black Panthers or militant La Raza folks? I'm choosing specific groups that many have expressed worry about or intimidation by, but honestly, I'm sure there are quite a few other groups as well: Aryan Nation and KKK, just to name two. What if a group of any of those were to show up and stand at the legally permitted distance from the poll entrance on election day (as happened in 2008), openly armed(this didn't, that I know of)? Would that have a chilling effect on voter turnout? (Note that I am not asking if it would intimidate anyone here, I'm asking for thoughts regarding and of the general public.)

I think it probably would, and that very well could turn the vote against us again, and it's a conversation we should have now, before it becomes a problem. How do we counter that probable chilling effect?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BugI02]

I'm not sure I see a way to counter it, Bill. We could certainly match or exceed the numbers of any group either with a formal organization (ie: Oath Keepers or some such) or an informal group (INGO) but I fear this would just leave those that are not pro-2A feeling, not safer, but potentially caught in a crossfire.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

There should be "Constitutional carry" open, or concealed, for ANY type of weapon, anywhere in the nation, for any U.S. CITIZEN.


But it would be nice to ban islam. It's as dangerous as any other hard drug.

 

[beararms1776]

I always thought the whole point of oc/ cc or Constitutional is for all to have right to self defense against whomever and whatever, with a firearm. Period. The point is, carrying for any other reason outside of that (from the 2nd paragraph, in support of anything outside Constitutional Law) would just be self destructing to the Constitution itself. YeeHaw!!!!

 

[Ruffnek]

I don't think religion should have anything to do with it. If I see a (insert scary stereotype here) carrying a gun in a safe manner, no issue here. If I see a (insert same scary stereotype here) threatening or attacking an innocent person, there will be an issue here...as well as a response.

 

[cbhausen]

May I offer a slight tweak to that? "I think every free person should be able to carry a gun if s/he chooses to do so." And I agree, religion is not the issue.



Where is that defined? The Constitution specifically protects the rights of all. No laws made respecting a specific religion, abridging free speech, free press, the right of assembly. An argument might be made for the freedom to petition, as those who cannot lawfully vote have no voice to those who are voted for. Rights must exist for all or they exist for none.

Yes, he's muddying the waters. Constitutional Carry is not the same as Open Carry, but does encompass it. He does make a good point. If we were to go out and see a group of men in long, white robes (stereotypical Muslim attire) and armed with AKs and pistols, would our SA meters not peg to the right? What about the New Black Panthers or militant La Raza folks? I'm choosing specific groups that many have expressed worry about or intimidation by, but honestly, I'm sure there are quite a few other groups as well: Aryan Nation and KKK, just to name two. What if a group of any of those were to show up and stand at the legally permitted distance from the poll entrance on election day (as happened in 2008), openly armed(this didn't, that I know of)? Would that have a chilling effect on voter turnout? (Note that I am not asking if it would intimidate anyone here, I'm asking for thoughts regarding and of the general public.)

I think it probably would, and that very well could turn the vote against us again, and it's a conversation we should have now, before it becomes a problem. How do we counter that probable chilling effect?

Blessings,
Bill

Thanks, BoR for this... I agree: "natural or God-given" rights transcend our Constitution. Our Constitution affirms them. I would have no problem with anyone carrying in the scenarios you describe until ability, opportunity and jeopardy exist. Then it's on like Donkey Kong. But that's preaching to the choir here. J.Q. Public would have a conniption fit and we all know that. This is where the slow and difficult work of changing hearts and minds comes in. Raise good kids, be a good parent. And do your damnedest to help Revere's Riders, Project Appleseed, etc. fulfill their missions. This is hard work and we all know it. If we don't get engaged and stay engaged the current all around us will sweep us away from the USA we cherish.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks, BoR for this... I agree: "natural or God-given" rights transcend our Constitution. Our Constitution affirms them. I would have no problem with anyone carrying in the scenarios you describe until ability, opportunity and jeopardy exist. Then it's on like Donkey Kong. But that's preaching to the choir here. J.Q. Public would have a conniption fit and we all know that. This is where the slow and difficult work of changing hearts and minds comes in. Raise good kids, be a good parent. And do your damnedest to help Revere's Riders, Project Appleseed, etc. fulfill their missions. This is hard work and we all know it. If we don't get engaged and stay engaged the current all around us will sweep us away from the USA we cherish.

Exactly this. The idea that one person above stated, and sadly, many believe, is what led the Pilgrims to leave England, what led 13 million plus to gas chambers and shallow, unmarked roadside graves in 1939 and the early to mid 1940s, and what led to the whole Serbia/Bosnia/Chechnya thing in the 1990s and early to mid 2000s. That thing is prejudice. The idea, and please understand that I'm not stomping on the member above who gave it voice, that a particular religion is bad and needs to be banned, or for that matter, that a people (Arab, Jew, Christian, American, whatever) does, is unconscionable to me. Niemoller aside, the judging of a whole people by few examples is closed-minded. Again, that's not to denigrate anyone to say it, including our members here. Even closed minds can be opened.

Sure, I get it. All the cites of the Koran and other writings that say to enslave, kill, or convert, or that it's permissible to lie, or that you can fake peace while preparing to fight again.... I get it. I wonder how many who cite such things have actually read the Koran to see what is said, in context? In fairness, I have not. By comparison, I saw something in the Book of Mormon a few years ago (yes, I have a copy; no, I do not believe as they do) that could be read to call all Black people evil (a skin of blackness, I think was the phrasing,) and another passage that defined Jewish people as the personification of evil in our world (forgive me, it's been a very long time since I read it, and I'm just not motivated enough to go get the book and look for it again)

Should I condemn all members of the LDS church for those words? Or should I instead look at each person individually? Christianity's own Bible states, "By their works shall ye know them", and points that phrase to the evil of the world, but is it not applicable to the good as well?

I've told this story before, but way way way back on Packing Dot Org (PDO) before it poofed into nothingness, I got accused of being a "left liberal socialist fascist". Why? Ignoring the obvious contradiction, not to mention the complete lunacy of such a statement in re: me, the reason that someone got so hot under the collar at me was that.....

Given the scenario of a person of Arabic and/or Islamic origin somewhere up ahead of me on a sidewalk, leaning against a doorway, partially hidden, I did not immediately (in this hypothetical scenario) draw and engage this person, solely for being of Middle Eastern origin. The scenario was then described as evolving to the guy moving to expose his AK and running at me with blood lust in his eyes.... at which point I did agree that I would draw and fire. To me, it's simple: Just because he's a Muslim does not make him either a threat or a target. Nor does anyone else's group affiliation.

That said, though, I'm not typical. Many of our countrymen do embrace the prejudice and would look on a person of scary stereotype as a threat, solely because they saw him armed. Hell, some look at them as threats solely for existing! Case in point:

Other case in point: A blog I saw once, titled "Black Man With a Gun". Why that phrase? Because it worked! It got peoples' attention and his blog got read. It's memorable because of the stereotype, the prejudice. Personally, I love the fact that the guy used the stereotype to his own advantage, effectively thumbing his nose at it.

The fact is, though, many of our countrymen, many even here on INGO, would absolutely lose their and have both kittens and cows simultaneously if they were to see someone dressed as in my other post, carrying a firearm, whether long gun or handgun, openly, even today, with the LTCH requirement. Some who are all too happy to see Bubba One and Bubba Two carry long guns into restaurants would and be ready to fire on Habib and Muhammed if they saw them doing the same thing.

It's embarrassing.

But, if we want this thing to go through, we are not only going to have to accept that it won't apply only to "people just like us", but to people in general, and we had better get used to that fact real da*n quickly, because it is now September, and the legislature will be meeting in December to organize and in January to start the session. We have a lot of work to do helping the public at large to see that no matter what their manner of dress, their belief system, or their skin color, a person armed is not a threat until their actions make them one. Cuz folks? we may all look harmless, but to some folks, we're as big a threat as anyone out there.... And yes, that also is prejudice. How's it feel to be on the wrong side of it?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GNRPowdeR]

It's embarrassing.

Nuff Said...

 

[chipbennett]

Without having read any previous comments yet, or any further than the first couple paragraphs of the linked article, I'm struck:

What if there were a group of Muslim open carry advocates who called themselves “Sword of the Prophet” and whose avowed mission was to bring Sharia law to the US...

Sharia Law is inherently unconstitutional, and pushing for it would constitute sedition. Thus, such behavior would be inherently unlawful, and not peaceable. It would have nothing to do with them bearing arms, but rather with their intent to subvert the constitution.

...and they took to showing up armed and in large numbers outside of churches on Sunday, the way the OC guys do at the state house.

Gathering at the State House is a valid exercise of the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Gathering at a church is an act of intimidation.

State violation of the natural, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms constitutes a valid grievance for which to petition for redress. Intimidating Christians exercising their natural, constitutionally protected freedom of religion is not a valid grievance, nor is a church a valid entity to which to petition for redress of such invalid grievance.

Or what if there were a group of hispanic activist OCers, maybe an offshoot of La Raza who liked to organize armed protests at police stations and court houses, and who openly advocate the “reconquista” of the Southern US?

Again: such would be an act of sedition. It would have nothing to do with carrying firearms, but rather with the unlawful action they advocate.

Regardless of what OC advocates would answer to any of this, I’m pretty sure the general public would be none too pleased.

Indeed, because you are conflating lawful actions in the exercise of natural, constitutionally protected rights with acts of intimidation in advocacy of sedition.

What I also wonder is if those who are pushing for open carry, or “constitutional carry” as they’re now calling it, have thought this through.

You don't know the difference between open carry and constitutional carry, and you have the audacity to admonish others for failing to have "thought this through"?

This isn’t a rhetorical question; I’m really dying to know.

Try thinking, perhaps?

So, let's just cut to the chase:

So again, let me be clear: I take it as a given that if OC is the law, Muslim citizens will and should be allowed to exercise their 2A rights, so the question I’m asking is, can the American public handle the sight of armed Muslims walking the streets?

Absolutely. I support the right of every law-abiding citizen to exercise the natural, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. But I will resist those who, bearing arms or otherwise, act unlawfully to intimidate others, or to advocate for sedition. That you seem incapable or unwilling to differentiate between the lawful exercise of natural, constitutionally protected rights by law-abiding citizens and the unlawful and/or seditious actions of "revolutionaries", as you call them, says more about you than anything else.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes Sir, your definition is what I understood Constitutional Carry to be.

I guess my confusion is that I wasn't aware that some consider "Open Carry" = "Constitutional Carry". (As stated in P4,S1 of the linked article)

Thanks for the help.

Part of that confusion is driven by recent-ish SCOTUS decisions. The current position is that states must allow one form of carry, either concealed or open, if they restrict the other form of carry. Unfortunately, "allow" includes "shall-issue" licensing/permitting systems, so the current SCOTUS position doesn't truly enact constitutional carry. But, that's how Illinois *almost* became Constitutional Carry, and how the District of Columbia, for a day or two, actually *did* become Constitutional Carry.