Posted on 04/26/2012 9:17:28 AM PDT by marktwain
A bill currently making its way through the Oklahoma state legislature would allow citizens of the state to openly carry loaded handguns without a permit. Only six states and the District of Columbia expressly prohibit this practice, with the remaining states either specifically allowing open carry or having no law on the books prohibiting it. In recent years, the practice of openly carrying a gun has grown in popularity, as legislation that would permit it has been introduced in places like Texas, South Carolina, and Arkansas—some of the last states that have held out against it.
Proponents of open carry laws point to the Second Amendment as their justification, as open carry has never been ruled out of the Constitution in any court, and they argue that the practice is technically legal in every state that does not specifically prohibit it. They claim that weapons carried in plain sight act as a deterrent to would-be attackers and criminals, and they hold that those with malicious intent almost always conceal their weapons—a practice that is much more widely accepted.
Opponents of open carry say that relaxing attitudes toward publicly displayed guns would naturally lead to more violence and misuse of firearms. They claim that the Second Amendment does not justify open carry, and they hold that more guns out in the open will lead to more intimidation and less safety.
Should people be allowed to carry guns openly? Here’s the Debate Club’s take:
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Wrong question. The question should be rephrased as: Should the Government be allow to take away the rights and freedoms already protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights by prohibiting the carry of firearms?
Importantly, easing up on gun laws has a lot of momentum right now, but the gun control nuts are looking for an opening, and will likely be able to muster a lot of money from their left wing billionaire friends in a hurry, as well as MSM support, for an “anti-gun reaction”.
So if states are thinking about easing their gun laws, now is the time, or they may find themselves facing a barrage of anti-gun propaganda and funding designed to overwhelm their state legislature. Legislators are not terribly strong, and turning up the heat on them can often make them decide to pull “contentious issues” off the front burner. And once momentum stalls, who knows how long it will be before it can be regained.
Importantly, reciprocity agreements with other states are also very important, because it makes things much harder to change back to the way they were. They are in effect treaties, that have to be renegotiated. For example, if OK made a reciprocity agreement with AZ, then any Oklahoman who traveled to AZ and got a piece of paper the state is handing out for its reciprocity agreements, the Oklahoman could carry both openly *and* concealed, *in* Oklahoma, without further problem, even if the OK legislature changed its mind.
If you are a robber, are you going to rob the guy that looks weak and unarmed? Or the guy with the .460 XVR strapped to his leg?
A mix of both would really keep 'em guessing. "All those folks are strapped. Can't hit them... What about this guy? Oh crap! He's packing concealed! Damn..." *bang* *bang* *bang*
Happy days...
I would imagine its much the same in Wyoming. The left thinks they are on a roll.
But hardly.
They will soon reach the end of their leash.
Maybe a Serbu Super Shorty would prove a manageable compromise.
A clear example of the maxim that a right that is not exercised is lost.
>Although it is perfectly legal, I’d carry a 12 ga. shotgun with me everywhere I went, but I know that the LEOs would harass me to without mercy, so I don’t.
If they did harass you about it they’d be committing a felony themselves: conspiracy against rights.
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or **intimidate** any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District **in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution** or laws of the United States, **or because of his having so exercised the same**;”
The simplest solution is to make ALL gun crimes federal crimes. IF you use a gun while committing a crime you spend 25 years in jail. And, if you fire the weapon while committing a crime you spend the rest of your natural life in jail.
PROBLEM WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF!
“Be allowed?” It’s your right. It’s the law of the land of our nation.
Which is the advantage: being able to surprise an attacker, or dissuading an attack? being slowed in drawing, or not having to draw at all (and drawing fastest if you have to)?
We had a case a couple of years ago where a man was arrested and jailed by Norfolk Police for open carry in a city park. Case went to the Virginia Supreme Court, where the ruling was that open carry is lawful by state law and municipalities cannot overrule the state law.
Good point; perhaps the question should be frames, "Should "We the people" allow authorities to curtail our 2nd Amendment rights?
Yes, thats pretty much whats happening now. Note that the govt is all too happy to use force in this ‘contest’. They have no qualms about committing violence against those who oppose them peacefully. Despite MSM lies about gun owners being the bad guys anyone w/ a brain understands its armed govt agents and pols who fit that bill.
Of course. And swords if they want.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years and the guy that killed Michael Jackson got five years. Seems like Blago would have been better off killing Michael Jackson. I am not crying for either person, but does the punishment seem correct.
I still say that if the law stated that if you fire a weapon in the commission of a crime you spend the rest of your natural life in jail. After all if you fire a weapon while committing a crime you have no business in society. This would make people think.
Do you know that from the time that FL passed it right to carry law violent crime dropped 23%, and since they passed the stand your ground law it dropped 53%. i think the number speak for themselves.
Open carry? You may be the first taken out - from behind.
Concealed - first I get my family/friends and self down and covered then I can shoot. CWP makes you think. ;-)
Most all would-be attackers are looking for easy pickings. They see you with a gun, they’ll leave you alone. For what would attacking you when obviously armed be worth the risk?
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.