There are none. And so there again, the right holds the high ground -- something people tend to miss completely in this debate.
Posted on 07/28/2012 3:52:19 AM PDT by marktwain
HANOVER, Pa. (WHTM) -
Pennsylvania law allows adults who can legally own a firearm to openly carry in most public places, but not everyone may agree with a man who chose to wear his pistol to a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises."
The manager of Hanover's R/C Theatre, Kim Underwood, says she called police Monday evening after she was notified that a movie-goer had a handgun tucked into his belt.
She said she thought it was best to notify authorities given the killings of 12 people in Aurora, Colorado during the movie's midnight opening last week.
"They handled it accordingly after the movie was over. He was very cool about it," Underwood said of the 27-year-old gun owner.
There wasn't much to handle. Pennsylvania law allows open carry in businesses, although not everyone agrees it's a good idea.
"I support people's rights to carry guns and what have you, but a movie theater is another story," movie-goer Santo Musotto said.
The gun owner, who we will not identify, told abc27 News that exercising his Second Amendment right is simply part of his routine.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc27.com ...
Well, I'm 75, and I consider a 27-year-old a "kid" if he is going around making a big issue of open carrying, and legitimately inviting questions as to his common sense, when a small fee for a PA license, if he is a person not prohibited, will admit one without question to any place where legally allowed open or concealed.
Remember, a CCDW licensee can carry open any place he wishes. But some places are just not practical, convenient, wise, or popularly accepted. Being an agitator on principle may not be helpful to the cause at all.
But "kids" often don't understand that. That's what makes them kids. I respect a person who shows good judgment as not being a kid, whether 16 or 60.
Sometimes I exhibit poor judgment in answering comments on FR just to make a point. Maybe this is one case. But open carry campaigns in this atmosphere, especially at this movie, does not seem to be a wise thing. Flatulence in church, when it slips out inadvertently, is to be forgiven; but when deliberate, in-your-face, and flaunted, is wholly inexcusable.
With respect to those of a different opinion on this -- but I have mine.
I see this is ABC. I’m surprised they didn’t immediately label him a Tea party member and say he was caught before he tried to murder movie patrons.
Personally, I grew up in the west (born in Wyoming) and am quite comfortable with responsible people carrying firearms openly. The more wannabe criminals see people openly carrying, the more they are likely to take their nefarious business elsewhere.
But I also understand the mindset of people who get the vapors over seeing someone with an unconcealed firearm and prefer to carry concealed myself.
I know some 27 year olds that have served 8 years in the USMC, done 4 tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, and are married with multiple children. Are they kids to you?
I just posted the related article on freerepublic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911767/posts
If I saw someone packing in a state where open carry is legal, I’d be sitting next to him/her....
If I wasn’t wearing my own.
The government is my government, and it would do a little better if it stopped infringing on my rights. But as it is I have the right to open carry, and would like to see concealed carry without having to pay for it. But denying minors, felons, and mentally unstable segments of the population from purchasing and carrying sidearms without severe penalties does not seem unreasonable.
Your assertion that I would give up my freedoms without a contest is asinine. But if I exercised my freedom to call you an ass to your face, that might cause you to exercise your freedom to punch me in the nose, for which you might voluntarily lose your freedom. You are not making sense. We have governments to do exactly what they are meant to do -- to regulate human behavior.
And again, he's not a kid. When does he become a young adult, 35?
Did I not already answer this question? He may be legally an adult, but he is not showing mature judgment when he lights a match in an incendiary location with people who have been recently sensitized. That's just dumb. He might be doing this in PA, but he would be in the slammer in NY or IL.
Again, you can have your opinion -- it's a free country.
I bet when this movie opens in Israel that many the audience will be carrying M-16s and Uzis.
There are none. And so there again, the right holds the high ground -- something people tend to miss completely in this debate.
You need to remove your sig line. It doesn’t fit with your denigration of this mans efforts to be “be forearmed”...
If you have fallen for the fallacy of “looking like a weak, easy target by carrying concealed only” is better than looking like a capable adversary who is openly armed, then this could explain a few things about your attitude.
According to the political Left, anyone who wants to own/carry a firearm is "Mentally unstable". Are you sure you want to give the FedGov that power? Please note, this is not a power they have currently under Art 1 Sec 8.
if 'they' cant be trusted with power tools, why do "we" allow them to FReely roam the streets and movie theaters and endanger our families ???
We have governments to do exactly what they are meant to do -- to regulate human behavior.
and as stated before, be careful what you wish for, as the 'mentally unstable' may be easily defined as anyone in defiance of any 'law' or collective groupthink...common sense or otherwise...
Probably that whole thing about not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and all that. You know, the first baby steps in legislating God-given rights away.
Then there's the judicial get-away-with-anything term: precedence.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
A proper, Constitutional Government is there to protect your God given rights to life and property. The fact that some human behaviors are regulated is ancillary to that purpose, not the reason for it.
If you don't examine first principles, you'll end up allowing an illegitimate Government like the one we have now regulating your behavior in very dangerous ways.
Unh-unh. If open carry is the only option for law-abiding people, the only one for the perpetrator to fear and avoid is the open carrier -- like, say, a police officer or person with openly visible arms. No change in violent crime there.
But where concealed carry is another, and preferred option, especially in a "shall issue" state, the violent crime rate markedly drops. John R. Lott, Jr.'s statistics say so, I believe so, and act accordingly. Don't be the first to find out if the crowd I'm in is forewarned. You won't know until you show your hand.
As I have said before and often we should all prepare to carry such as Israel has had to do. Not just for a single crazed person but for several or possibly many.
Granted it may never be allowed to pass open carry for fully auto weapons like an Uzi, Glock 18 or other machine pistols but we should be on an early stage of war footing, because who is actually in front of us? I don’t see much of the police, nor the military, and every day they are either being restricted by actions or going the opposite direction under socialistic agenda orders.
Give me liberty, or give me death. If we are under armed they won’t give us liberty our enemies that is. Our enemies from many directions. And they may have tactically superior weapons.
The law in your state may need to change.
The Heller and McDonald decisions make it quite plain that the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment from government infringements. This protection extends to infringements by state governments.
If our Founders intended the protection to extend to only the concealed carrying of firearms, they were certainly capable of saying so. In fact, most arms that were carried at the time of the passing of the Second Amendment were long arms for which concealed carry would be impractical. The "bearing" of arms in the Second Amendment most certainly applies to those carried openly. At the time of our nation's founding, the prejudice of the day was probably against the concealed carrying of arms.
As to the practical aspects of open carry, it's my opinion that the risks are very much over-stated. While it may be possible to forcibly take a firearm from a person, there are measures, such as retention holsters, which make such a thing a very dangerous undertaking. Police and security guards carry openly all the time. I am aware of no great concern about these people being forcibly disarmed.
There is absolutely no justification for stopping a person solely because they are openly carrying a firearm. A couple of generations of gun control, enabled by a silent Supreme Court, and treasonous Circuit Courts, have created a prejudice against the lawful carrying of arms. I am greatly pleased to see this being reversed.
Mentally unfitness for gun ownership is currently defined by Federal Law 118 U.S. C. par. 922(g)(4) and this is to which I referred. A person in a mental hospital only for observation or self-admitted does not come under this prohibition.
This may help allay your fears. I, too, am concerned as to what may be attempted under Executive Order without legislation. But right now, James Holmes own mother would have found it almost impossible to have her adult son committed no matter how odd he might seem. Consider the John DuPont who drove his M114 armored personnel carrier over to his neighbor's house, and asked him to come out and play. John DuPont later shotgunned his personal trainer, but defense claims of legal insanity were rejected.
We have firm protections of individual liberty in place, and yes, they could be altered -- but not as easily as you might think.
We will always be faced with the conundrum that degree of liberty is a statistical problem. That was addressed somewhat by Emile Durkheim, the "father of social science," and popularized by Moynihan in defining how we view deviant behavior. How do you suggest we define it other than by the standards our legislators and courts provide? And how shall we redefine deviancy up or down, rather than leave it alone? Who ought to do the defining?
I certainly hope that it is not left up to the Executive branch to determine!
Respectfully --
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.