Are open-carry advocates helping or hurting gun rights?

The New York Times has a piece here about open-carry advocates. Most states have laws allowing gun owners to openly carry weapons in public, but it has the effect of, well, freaking some people out. In recent years, open-carry advocates have organized meetups where they'll all show up at a restaurant or coffee shop or what have you.

They do this partly to show that, really, it's not a big deal -- mature, licensed gun owners are perfectly safe. Though some, the Times notes, are doing this because they can't get concealed-carry permits. In California, for example, acquiring a CCW permit takes some doing.

The Times says that some people in the gun-rights movement think how open-carry advocates operate is counterproductive.

“I’m all for open-carry laws,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights advocacy organization in Washington State. “But I don’t think flaunting it is very productive for our cause. It just scares people.”

Comments

[jeano]

We are heading back to the old West ways of doing things? Carrying weapons (whether open or concealed), shootouts, gangs? Well, where's Marshall Dillon when you need him? Pat Garrett? Can you make a comeback, please?

[Drasil]

jeano. When was the last time that a person that was "lawfully" carrying a weapon got into a "shootout"?

[Searching]

The only people having shootouts are the thugs downtown, and I don't think any of them got their guns legally.

[David]

I WOULD RATHER BE IN A RESTAURANT, WITH EVERYONE CARRYING A WEAPON. IT WOULD MAKE SOMEONE THINK MORE THEN ONCE ABOUT ROBBING YOU!!

[quixotic]

Are these weapons loaded? If not, it's kind of silly. If so, it could be dangerous if someone else got their hands on it.

If a thug can get the drop on an open carrier and demand they surrender weapons, or just shoot them first, then it could become another source of guns for thugs.

I have no problem with concealed carry.

[JJ]

*Snip*
“I’m all for open-carry laws,” “But I don’t think flaunting it is very productive
*snip*

Does anyone realize that this guy is a complete contradiction? How about if I said something like I'm all for federal income tax but I dont think people should pay up.

IDIOT.

[jeano]

Lawful or unlawful, all these things exist, do they not?

[killemall]

Quixotic, "Are these wepons loaded?" Having an unloaded weapon would be like having a cell phone in the off mode. But even then I would still have the better advantage if attacked, while the attacker is looking down the barrel of my 45, you can turn your cell phone on, wait for it to boot up, dile 911, wait for them to answer, gather your information, dispatch a cop, wait for them to arrive, give them time to analize the situation, take action. I'll keep my 45 (loaded or not)

[wyomingsundancer]

I grew up in a state that it is no big deal for people to carry a weapon openly. When a resident is stopped for a traffic violation they tell the officer that I have a pistol in the glove box, console etc. NO BIG DEAL. During hunting season most people walk into a restaurant with a pistol strapped on again no big deal. I did not know what a residential burglary was when I worked there. I moved to Colorado and that was about all I did was cover residential burglaries. People that grow up using a weapon know it is something to be respected and not played with. Too many people today watch too much TV and movies and have never had to process an animal for their next meal, learning the value of life in the process. My own brother was an avid hunter, but he never taught his own daughters about gun safety. When they came to my house I had to secure all my guns for fear that they would "play" with them. My own son was taught at a very early age that they are not to play with. He could safely load a black powder revolver when he was four, which some adults can't do. I never worried about him being curious for the simple fact that he knew what a gun was for and respected it.

[Stifled Freedom]

Oh I think they are helping despite whatever delusions the NY Times has done to itself. The Times is a biased rag.

[STL]

People have gotten so used to seeing 3,000 and 4,000 pound cars zooming all around them they've forgotten just how deadly this weapon can be. When one is involved in a crash or knows someone injured or killed in a crash, they once again become painfully aware of their inherent power and danger.

How many deaths and maimings occur every year because of drivers losing control of their automobiles? Cars are one weapon not easily concealed. Deadly nonetheless and ever present we've all become accustomed to them wherever we go.

[quixotic]

JJ, I don't see a contradiction in his statements. The legality of open carry doesn't concern me much, but the advisability of walking around with a visible weapon is questionable, at least in some circumstances.

[Jane]

I lived in North Carolina and it was legal to carry a gun in an unlocked glove box but illegal to carry one in a locked one.

Everyone seems to think it’s the big bad federal government that wants to enact screwy gun laws and nobody wants to look at state governments. It’s the states that are passing these screwy laws.

[Boogaloo Shrimp]

Gun nuts sure a scary bunch of people.

[dagibbie]

killemall, I agree completely with you. When people are taught the responsibility of gun usage and ownership everyone is a lot safer. I would feel a whole lot safer in a restaurant or coffee shop both as an employee or a customer if people come in with the weapons visible. The caliper of people who will carry their weapons on the out side for all to see are NOT the ones who will use it in the wrong or illegal way.

[midtown miscreant]

"He could safely load a back powder pistol when he was 4"

Seriously?

I've got no beef with legal gun owners, and while I'm less than thrilled about conceal and carry laws, for the most part, the occasional moron aside, C&C people have acted responsibly. That said, anyone who puts a real gun in the hand of a 4 year old, doesn't fall in the responsible category. I'm lookin atcha Sunchaser dood.

[Chuck McRizzo]

Boogaloo, I'm far more scared of the general public than anyone who openly carries a firearm. Why you may ask. That's because the people you have to worry about are the ones you don't suspect.

[EsqEB]

When they outlaw open carry, the only people openly carrying will be outlaws...

Wait. Nevermind.

[Jewells]

Did I miss something here? How many openly carry a firearm? The KCPD & OPPD do frown upon it. Hence the term CONCEAL CARRY..
I don't, you'll never know I have a weapon.
I paid a pretty good chunk of change for the privilege, as do all who carry in Kansas or Missouri. Also folks with CCW's seem to be the most law abiding people you'll find, ask any cop or sheriff deputy.

[Stephen Carter]

Open Carry, while I want to do it, will attract all the wrong kind of attention and thus I stand next to you in line @ Price Chopper with 20rds of JHP 9mm on my hip. And you're none the wiser.

Think about it like this: when is the gov coming around and limitin the horsepower in you car to 100? Or putting 55mph limiters in the electronics? Who says you need 300hp or to go 70mph...the gov says you don't need too sooner or later.

The more liberties you give up in the name of safety are tickets to the next one they take in the name of either safety or a nanny state.

Eventually they'll come after something you hold dear and then where will you be?

[Steve]

Dude, you taught a 4 year old to "safely load a black powder revolver"? You're the reason the term gun nut was invented.

[KC Cicero]

The "problem' with a bunch of folks carrying guns around for the gunnuts is that it drives home to the sane just how nuts it is to have all these weapons wandering about.

[Brad]

Teaching a 4-year-old how to load a black powder revolver isn't dangerous at all as long as you don't provide him an ignition source (cap).

Maybe the anti-gun crowd should switch to decaf and relax.

[Chuck McRizzo]

Brad I think the anti-gun crowd should maybe educate themselves about firearms before they "shoot off" their mouths haha. Snap.

I open carry my pocket knife around, am I crazy? I mean technically it is a deadly weapon.

[Nemesis]

I pointed out a few days ago in the OT thread with a Fox news story that 1 year after the Supremes struck down DC's gun laws, DC's murder rate went down 25%, the lowest level since 1967. Coincidence? Not a chance.

The same principal that assured America's safety during the cold war with Russia applies here: MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. It kept people from doing something stupid. So too, criminals do not want to see a 9MM in the hands of their intended victim. Criminals are cowards and pick unarmed targets.

[Marvin]

Nemesis,

Cite that stat. I have family in the area and people have been CCW regardless of the laws to protect themselves from the local hoods. I doubt changing the law had that much effect on real behavior.

[Moufwash]

Think about all the things that we now do post 9-11 in terms of "safety", now think about the logistics of this stuff with everyone carrying around a visable weapon.

Like all things, it seems like a perfectly ok idea for responsible and sane people, however, we know liberties are never limited to that small group of people.

[john]

I live in VA where concealed carry (w/permit) and open carry are allowed. I tend to carry based upon what I wear. In the winter, with heavier clothes, I generally carry concealed in public. However, in the summer, with lighter clothes, I often carry openly. I say, carry as you please.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[Moufwash]

john,

Do you carry for personal protection or would you pull it if you saw someone robbing a store?

[ewduke]

Here in New Mexico Open Carry has long been the law of the land; yet I doubt on any occasion in your day to day travels will you see someone actually doing it. It brings unwanted attention. I myself though if you are standing next to me in a store or setting next to me in the coffee shop will never know that I am carrying a Glock 30 .45 ACP with an extra clip concealed on my person. People like me train and have our CCW and are very responsible. It is the thug with bad intentions in mind that you have to worry about. The law abiding citizen doesn't go looking for trouble or a victim. If one of us is ever there with you and that thug wants to rob the place and herd everyone in a back room to get rid of witnesses (as happens far too often) you will be glad that we the CCW crowd were there to protect ourselves and not follow like sheep to the slaughter. Open carry has never caused an issue, it's not for me but I will not condemn those who do in a state where it is legal. I just don't like the attention that it would bring.

[Nemesis]

"Nemesis, Cite that stat."

Here is the link to the FOX news article that cites the 25% drop in the DC murder rate.

[Nemesis]

The Link to the FOX news story also links to the Washington times that the FOX news story is based on.

[Nemesis]

Here is a pretty good reaon for CCW. Gun control is all how you aim the gun.

[Marvin]

As usual, there's normally something else behind the numbers. Check out the steady decline in murders in DC. There's one year that looks to be about 33% and another around 20%. Rather steady decline.

BTW I'm not for home gun bans, but I also highly doubt that removing it had any effect on murders (since so many of them have nothing to do with home protection).

[Marvin]

Oops that's 25% not 33%.

[Nemesis]

Your missing 4 years of data Marvin. 2005 shows a murder rate of 195 and there were 186 in 2008 per the article, not much of a drop considering the last time DC posted only 140 murders was 1967.

Like I said, criminals are cowards and and they don't start gunfights with armed people. If they know people are armed they are a no show. Guns don't have to fire a single round to be a deterrent.

[rugerdon]

Has anyone seen the video of the dumb crook who put a mask on before he went in to hold up a Jewlry store.

The mask; however, blocked his eyesight and he accidentally walked into the gun shop next door and with his gun drawn he yelled: "Everyone down, this is a holdup!"

Well, gun shop owners and patrons of such shops are normally armed and he didn't fare too well.

If citizens are allowed to carry weapons, crime goes down.

[jimmy]

How do you "hurt" a right? What a stupid question posed by a stupid person.

[Nemesis]

"How do you "hurt" a right? What a stupid question posed by a stupid person."

Jimmy, don't call James stupid. He is anything but.

James question points out the fact that Americans feel unsafe because a gun is present. He questions whether judges decisions will be a reaction to those fears. (actually it is a phobia)

The right to bear arms are erroded everytime additional gun control laws are passed. We don't need more gun control laws. Judges and DA's need to vigorously enforce and prosecute the laws already on the books.

[sunshineinks]

Neither... This is really a non story. But the paper just has to print it. Thats the real issue. More fear mongering. Thats the American way these days... Make people pick a side with every issue, (no common sense middle ground any more) Sad.

[Dustin]

I'm still waiting for all the predicted blood in the streets.

Open Carry has been around since before the Nation was even formed. It's the only form of Bearing Arms that PREVENTS anything bad from happening. Concealed carry laws require a person to wait until they are about to be killed before they are even allowed to draw the weapon they are carrying. Open Carry advertises "Hey man, bad idea, don't even try it." Instead of waiting until you've been stabbed a half dozen times hoping that is legally close enough to dead to be allowed to defend yourself...

The best use of a gun, is to never have to draw it. Concealed REQUIRES it, and only after you're close to being dead already. Open Carry is the ONLY preventative carry method.

"Out of sight, out of mind." Criminals DON'T think twice, unless they SEE IT!

How many stories of Concealers firing to stop a threat? How many stories of Open Carriers? Hint: it never gets that far with Open Carry.

[Joe Patch]

I enjoyed reading these posts but was set aback by the verbal attacks from a few bloggers. I assumed they would be "less aggressive" and closer to a bonding and reassuring debate. I have been an avid CCW and Open Carry debater for years after losing my Father in the line of duty as a Parkway Trooper in NY. After my military service and many family members following Dads path (my Brother and I were not allowed) I was looking to head to an OC state, now its nation wide and I love it. Hang in there guys and lets focus on the laws and our governments inability to properly enforce them, good luck and try to keep an open mind. Take some time and check out www.odmp.org, it is a site dedicated to all Fallen Officers of North America (including Canada) since 1798 and info on much of their "Last Watch" is disheartening on how many are flat shot dead by trusting an average person. Officer Down Memorial Page is very informative and updates daily, also allows postings and comments for fallen bretheren, thanks for your time.

[BambiB]

The guns are not loaded (which IS kind of stupid - but then it's the LAW that is stupid, not the people obeying it). Conversely, the guns can be loaded very quickly, so it's not as if these people are simply carrying around a hunk of useless steel.

Does open-carry "scare" people as Gottlieb says? Yes. I suppose it does. The problem is that open carry has been so throttled back that someone with a gun is now considered "unusual". Psychologically, people tend to accept the mundane, and back off from anything new.

Imagine the guy who's been going to Starbucks for years. He's never even seen a gun. One day he walks in and sees 20 people with guns. He freaks out a bit. His pulse races. He asks the management, "What are they DOING!" He might even write a letter to the editor.

The next day, he goes in and the same 20 guys are there with their guns. Recalling that he survived the previous day without incident, he orders his coffee and gives them dirty looks.

A few more such encounters down the line, the guns are largely forgotten. They've become accepted though familiarity. (This is what the Brady Bunch most earnestly wants to avoid. Once people lose their unreasoning fear of guns, the Brady constituency is gone.)

So the key here is for those who support open carry to KEEP CARRYING.

Overall, it's not the people carrying guns who are the problem. It's the squeamish "girly-men" and fascist women who believe all power should vest in the state. To them, I say with all sincerity - I hope you run into a situation where a gun might have saved you from the worst violent crime you can imagine- and that while you endure that crime, you think the entire time, and for the rest of your life thereafter, "If only I'd had a gun". After all, crime exists. Someone has to be the victim. It might as well be someone who wants to deprive other people of their ability to defend themselves.

It might as well be YOU.

[HerbM]

For those who support gun ownership, or especially concealed carry, but somehow come to the (erroneous) conclusion that open carry is dangerous, tactically unsafe, or just trouble, you need to re-think this based on FACTS and LOGIC.

Precisely the same fallacious arguments are used against open carry as the gun ban bunch falsely use against concealed carry and even owning firearms.

No data supports any significant problems where open carry is allowed. No data supports this being a poor tactical decision.

NONE.

If you are making this argument you have (partially) joined the dishonest and ignorant gun ban lobby.

Get the facts before you form an incorrect opinion.

Making such choices FOR YOURSELF is however a completely separate and completely personal decision however.

[Interested]

If the proponents of Open Carry were not so hateful to anyone with a different opinion, maybe those who were against would not fear them so. It never helps your case to call opponents stupid or wish bad things happen to them. It just makes you look hateful and dangerous and people know you are the one carrying the gun. Get the picture?

[kccad]

Interested...I think the fear you are talking about is rooted much deeper than any insult read in a local newspaper comment section.

[John Bates Thayer]

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?

The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's re-state the 2nd in another context:

A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.

There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)

[Interested]

What you have quoted JBT has not been upheld by the Supreme Court whose duty it is to interpret the Constitution, as there are limits on the right to keep and bear arms.

If you want to compare apples to apples instead of apples (right to keep and bear arms)to non-existent apple ghosts (right to books), you should compare to the free speech amendment which we all know has had limits put on that right that have been upheld by the Supremes.

Your argument does not hold water.

[Interested]

kccad, that is most likely true. It does not negate the fact, however, that there is no reason to try to browbeat, denigrade, and wish harm to people who do not agree with a certain position.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. I would guess that many of the proponents for gun control do not believe in guns (except for hunting perhaps). They most likely see no other good purpose for them. Perhaps they have had someone they know hurt or killed by a gun. Who knows - but they do have a right to their opinion without the personal attacks from the other side.

[kccad]

Interested said..."It does not negate the fact, however, that there is no reason to try to browbeat, denigrade, and wish harm to people who do not agree with a certain position."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I never said it did. If that was the opinion that you initially put out there, I would have agreed with you. I never said it was okay to do these things, only that the fear most have with regards to firearms would exist with or without the insults.

I agree that they have a right to their own opinion and if they don't want to own a firearm, they shouldn't. You are correct, everyone has a right to their own opinion, inlcuding gun owners. I would hope that you agree that those who come on here calling firearm owners gun nuts, rednecks, ect. are using personal attacks that are out of line, as well.