I think the next step in gun rights will sound oddly authoritarian, but is just the opposite of authoritarian: a legal *requirement* to be armed with a gun.
To explain, I knew of a judge who was sick of domestic violence cases with the same beaten women appearing before him time and again, and his protection orders ignored by everyone.
So he came up with the profound solution to use a bench order to *require* that these abused women be armed when in public, and to carry a copy of the bench order to show on demand to anyone who questioned her being armed.
And, being a good guy, if the women were too poor to afford a gun and ammo, he would stake them to both, out of his pocket.
It had a powerful effect. The number of women appearing before him twice dropped to zero.
But in any event, I think this *philosophy* should become the next idea in gun rights. To *require* citizens in many circumstances to be armed, whether or not they would be if left to their own devices.
People, and not just CCW holders can't do that already? With all the emphasis on CCW the last couple of decades, some states infringe more heavily on open carry than closed, but it still feels odd when you come across one.
"Of the 400 permits I have out there, 99.9 percent of these people are good, law abiding citizens," he said. "They're not going to draw attention to themselves by strapping the gun on and walking down Main Street. That's just not what they're all about."
Yeah, that bad 0.4 of a guy is worrisome. If you find a body from the hips down open carrying, arrest it! I do feel bad for his better 0.6 though.
In other words. Open carry, loose your permit.