Open carry is the 2nd Amendment

Examiner ^ | 02/22/09 | John Pierce

[JohnPierce]

During the interview, the anchor asked me the question “What do you say to those 2nd Amendment supporters who oppose open carry?” I have been asked this question before and had always answered it by talking about the political and public policy benefits of open carry. However, it suddenly occurred to me that the question, as asked, made absolutely no sense ....

Full article at

http://tinyurl.com/bvnrr5

[facedown]

That is exactly correct. In fact the earliest attempts to subvert the 2A were restrictions on concealed carry.

[muawiyah]

As any Jew living in a Medieval European city or town could tell you, the "right to keep and bear arms" also means the right to self-protection, to give testimony in court and to serve in the local militia.

That Jew would know that because he was not allowed to keep or bear arms, nor protect himself or his family, or to give testimony in court, or serve in the local militia.

He could be dragged from his home and tossed into the wilderness to be ravaged by wild animals or the peasantry at will.

It's not so much that we have rights because we can arm ourselves ~ rather, it's that we cannot enjoy any of those other rights without that one, single, solitary right.

Might note that this is also a "communal" or "group" right ~ not just an individual right.

We, as a group, e.g. a town, a city or just a settlement in a "compound", can arm ourselves, and presumably can require all our members to arm themselves or go elsewhere.

[BobbyT]

“Open” vs “concealed” is just an arbitrary division, the same as the idea that a firearm can be “sporting” or too “assaulty” or not have enough “points”.

The right is to KEEP and BEAR arms. That means to not infringe the Second Amendment, people should be able to carry on their belt, in their waistband, or however deeply concealed they choose with no worried about whether some sliver of the grip peaks out while they reach for a high shelf.

I don’t ever see myself “open carrying”, but I’m not about to become one of those pragmatic fools who let our supporters be split by treating them as separate issues.

Concealed carry, open carry, no fees, no reason required, no being subjected to the whims of the local bureaucracy.

[blueyon]

Does not matter what the 2nd amendment says, Obie one will do as Obie pleases. Rules, policy and laws are for others.....

[SuperLuminal]

"What do you say to those 2nd Amendment supporters who oppose open carry?”

Stuff it!

[An Old Man]

John, Thanks for posting the article. I found the following text near the end to be most interesting, especially the question posed at the end.

Now at this point, I should rush to point out that I am an avid supporter of concealed carry laws and am not in any way downplaying their public policy benefits. The concealed carry movement that has swept the nation over the last two decades has done more to prevent crime and empower law-abiding citizens than any other public policy movement in my lifetime. But this does not change the fact that the founding fathers bore their arms openly and proudly and wrote the 2nd Amendment in that context.

Therefore, when 2nd Amendment supporters attack open carry as detrimental to the concealed carry movement, they are advocating sacrificing a right for a privilege.

Is that a deal we are really ready to make?

[Randy in CO]

Nail on the head. To bear arms is to carry, period. No distinction, no excuses, no division of what is a right and what is a privilege.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

What do you say to those 2nd Amendment supporters who oppose open carry?

Never heard of such a person. Can you point them out please?

[itsahoot]

and presumably can require all our members to arm themselves or go elsewhere.

Kennesaw, Georgia, did just that.

[itsahoot]

Is that a deal we are really ready to make?

Already been done. Look at the new legislation jammed into the stimulus bill.

[paulycy]

[InABunkerUnderSF]

“Open” vs “concealed” is just an arbitrary division, the same as the idea that a firearm can be “sporting” or too “assaulty” or not have enough “points”.

I agree with your statement but would like to make one suggestion. In place of "sporting" and "assaulty" I recommend the use of the terms "traditional" and "modern".

I don't recall where I came across the term "modern rifle" but it makes sense to me as a more accurate description for semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines that are popular today.

"Assault weapons" are properly defined as selective fire, short barrel, personal infantry weapons. The term today is misapplied to any semi-automatic rifle that meets the arbitrary, cosmetic description of the ordnance intended to infringe upon the right of the people to own them. They are not actually assault weapons. They are just rifles and carbines of modern design.

"Assault weapon" is a term of propaganda propaganda intended to frighten people unfamiliar with firearms by drawing a military or para-military connection. "Modern rifle" or "modern carbine" are also a terms of propaganda but they are more accurate terms. By using them we deprive the elites of one of their favorite code phrases and place them in the position of opposing modernity, something that might make some of them uncomfortable.

[muawiyah]

Thought you’d like that neat spin on the “collective right”, which, of course, does exist, right along side the individual right.

[Skibane]

Therefore, when 2nd Amendment supporters attack open carry as detrimental to the concealed carry movement, they are advocating sacrificing a right for a privilege.

Advocating the licensing of ANY aspect of gun ownership - concealed carry, machine guns, silencers, handguns, short-barreled rifles or whatnot - helps codify the 2nd Amendment as a privilege rather than a right.

[Freedom56v2]

Nail on the head. To bear arms is to carry, period. No distinction, no excuses, no division of what is a right and what is a privilege.

<<Please add “No Insurance provision”...remember us poor citizens of the Soviet Republik of ILL. :(

[An Old Man]

Advocating the licensing of ANY aspect of gun ownership ...

I couldn't agree with you more! I believe any form of restriction is "infringement".

[DTogo]

Time to push that button with a 2nd Amendment march on Washington D.C.: open, concealed, slung over the shoulder, whatever - IT’S YOUR RIGHT!!

[Randy in CO]

Viewing the 2nd Amendment as a privilege works for those who see the U.S. Constitution as a living document that needs to be perfected, rather than a legal document that means just (and only) what is stated within. It starts there, then the other guaranteed rights are also privileges that can be abridged, or eliminated.

“... the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed.” So easy even a democrat should understand!

[supercat]

Outside of some rare and specific circumstances where a concealed firearm could be hazardous for technical reasons (e.g. in the vicinity of an MRI machine) what reason should an honest person have to care whether or not another person is armed? If someone has a weapon concealed and someone who doesn’t realize he’s armed chooses to rob him, should the person who concealed his weapon be considered dishonorable for having lulled the robber into a false sense of security?