I don't think his argument is supported by evidence.
How is "negative publicity" among a bunch of rabid gun-haters a "bad thing?"
In multiple cases in Virginia, the Norfolk PD has been slapped down, and in two cases wrote lawsuit settlement checks totaling $25,000 to two people who they harassed for open carrying.
Another lawsuit in New Orleans was settled for an undisclosed sum. Here in New Hampshire, the Manchester PD has been slapped repeatedly for open carry harassment, culminating in public criticism during their CALEA accreditation hearings - a video is linked here. I think they're finally getting the message.
I can say from a position of knowledge that the only reason that the Portsmouth police chief did nothing more than say "he is legally armed" is because of the efforts of open-carry activists across the state, punishing police whenever they harass law-abiding citizens exercising their Article 2a rights and making sure that all the other police know about it. Because two or three years ago, Portsmouth cops would have assaulted him or otherwise violated his civil rights just like Manchester cops have done repeatedly over the past five years.
The enactment of a shall-issue concealed carry licensing law in Ohio came about ONLY because of and organized campaign of open carry.
And I think that map of carry law reform, with firearms freedom spreading nationwide over the years, speaks for itself, highlighting the efforts of both concealed and open carry activists.
How is anything going to change if nobody ever knows that someone else is armed? Why should they refrain from banning guns if they can easily assume from visual evidence that nobody ever carries them?
