Posted on 06/11/2014 4:34:03 PM PDT by Kaslin
Are people who assert their Second Amendment rights by bringing rifles and shotguns into stores and restaurants "weird" and "scary?" At least one staff member at the National Rifle Association (NRA) thought so, and he expressed that view in an online commentary that the organization felt compelled to retract last week after it caused an uproar among gun-rights advocates.
To some extent, the episode reflects divisions among Second Amendment activists, many of whom view the NRA, despite its reputation for adamantly resisting gun control, as insufficiently zealous. But the brouhaha also highlights a shift in American attitudes regarding the public display of guns.
The controversial essay, which the NRA posted on May 30, argued that protesters associated with Open Carry Texas had "crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness" by openly carrying rifles into coffee shops and restaurants. Although such displays are legal in Texas, the unnamed author said, they "can be downright scary" to people who do not understand what's going on, and they risk alienating potential supporters, making "folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates."
That article, which was originally attributed to the NRA itself, has since disappeared from the organization's website, replaced by a video in which Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, insists that "the National Rifle Association supports open carry ... unequivocally." Apologizing for "a poor word choice," Cox says the NRA agrees with Open Carry Texas that people should be allowed to carry handguns as well as long guns without having to hide them.
"In Texas some people have decided to protest the absurdity of the ban on open carry of handguns by carrying their long guns openly and legally," Cox says. "Ultimately what this comes down to is a tactics discussion."
In other words, while there is nothing wrong with wearing a pistol on your hip, slinging a rifle across your chest is a bit too ostentatious for the NRA's taste. Many people, however, may be alarmed by the sidearm, as well, which presumably is why Texas and several other states ban open display of handguns even by people with carry permits.
Then again, at least 18 states allow open carrying of handguns without a permit. That approach jibes with an older sensibility that viewed concealed weapons with suspicion.
As the Supreme Court noted in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision recognizing a constitutional right to armed self-defense, "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." In 1850, for example, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a ban on concealed weapons, ruling that the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment applies only to openly displayed weapons: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."
Openly carrying a weapon was considered manly and honorable, while secretly carrying a weapon was considered sneaky and disreputable; someone who hid his weapon was probably up to no good. Today, by contrast, the prevailing view, at least among urbanites, seems to be that secretly carrying a weapon is less worrisome than carrying it openly. Out of sight, out of mind.
Although their constitutional position has a long pedigree, organizations such as Open Carry Texas, which seeks "to condition Texans to feel safe around law-abiding citizens that choose to (openly) carry (guns)," may be fighting a losing battle. In any case, concealed weapons are probably a more effective deterrent to crime: When guns are hidden, bad guys do not know which potential victim might be armed. Hence there is a practical advantage to keeping your gun out of sight, aside from avoiding a panic at Starbucks.
“Weird and scary?” More like foolish—it’s showing your hole card. Concealed is better—keeps ‘em guessing.
The bad guys can easily tell when there are people around openly carrying... It’s the concealed carryer that they can’t identify that’ll be the one that drops them in their shoes.
We are an open carry state. I have a concealed carry license. I would rather not invite trouble. I feel more secure knowing I have it. No one else needs to know.
Yes, concealed by sane individuals is better.
I disagree. Open carry is safer, more convenient, and serves as a constant reminder of our rights.
I don’t think it’s wise to advertise your guns openly, but that is second-place to the fact that open carry does not violate anyone’s rights (unless the gun grabbers feel there is a right not to worry about piddling their undies at the mere sight of a gun), ergo, there should be no law against it (laws are meant to protect rights, nothing more and nothing less).
Back in the 80s I could walk down main street with a shotgun slung across my back and no one batted an eye. We even went into the grocery store and bank with them and never gave it a thought. Today we can even open carry in the Michigan state capitol building.
Panic over open carry is just “reasonable” gun control and reasonable gun control is reasonably stupid.
If a stranger comes waltzing by with an AR-15 in your neighborhood, would you not be concerned? This is crazy.
Texas would have open carry for hand guns but Richard Perry said no.
No, I would not.
I guess you must have grown up in NYC and have never spent any time in areas that allow open carry. Just because it’s scary to you New Yorkers doesn’t mean it’s scary to everyone else.
.
I prefer open carry. Oregon was open carry, and when I was out in the woods it made sense. In North Dakota, in the field we had a “presumed armed” standard, so you could do whatever you wanted.
In CA, we had a whole bunch of Open Carry advocates staging demonstrations at Restaurants and other Venues.
It was Legal here at the time, (but not in Texas?), so all it accomplished was getting the Liberals in Sacramento all worried and created a State wide call to action.
The Open Carry “Demonstrations” did nothing but give the Libtards a big issue and the ammunition (pardon the pun) to make Open Carry Illegal, for both Pistols and Long Guns, which they did.
In the end, the Libs won and we lost. It accomplished less than nothing. Give Liberals any excuse, sane or not, and they run with it.
I’m fine with both. Open carry also helps avoid problems like accidental exposure. If someone is carrying concealed and accidentally exposes it, our open carry law has them covered.
These nuts probably think abstinence is weird and scary....
I agree. It's interesting how some folks around here purport to be all out constitutionalists and supporters of every ones rights under the Constitution EXCEPT where they disagree on some aspect of the 2nd, open carry to wit. They seem to think their way is the most correct way and how dare any one else disagree with them on this petty issue. Just how is that different from those who say no one should be able to own or even carry firearms.
I would only caution them to be careful for they wish for. If you refuse to support the open carry folks (or at least refrain from criticizing openly OC issues) then don't be surprised when the anti-gunners come for your right to conceal carry. Those fine folks you like to write off as 'crazies' may not be around to support your version of the 2nd Amendment later when the anti-gunners for for your rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
