And just to underline the 2nd...every citizen should be forced to "bear arms"...see how the control freaks like living under a "law" THEY don't like like we had to.
Agreed. Open carry invites disarms. What will prevent someone from grabbing a visible gun? (and please, no one say ‘buckled holster’)
Guess you’ve never owned a business or a farm. What do you care if someone carries openly? Your opinion is wrong and based on fear and ignorance.
If a person is bold enough to jump someone armed, what do you think they are willing to do to an unarmed person?
> I will always think open carry, though LEGAL is stupid. <
I agree with you, but for different reasons. I feel open carry is unnecessarily provocative. Concealed carry should require no permit. That’s the 2A in action. It’s open carry that should require the permit.
Here’s why, by example. I live about a quarter of a mile from a high school. I can see it from my front porch. So let’s suppose I’m sitting on my front porch, and it’s 10 minutes before school lets out. A young man quickly walks past me heading towards the school, carrying a slung rifle.
What should I do? See something, say something? But he is really doing nothing wrong (I live in an open-carry state).
Bottom line: Firearms are in a way like erotica (or porno, if you wish). The Constitution acknowledges your right to carry such things around. But keep it concealed.
IIRC, when many states were eliminating obsolete laws, MA law enforcement was waiting at the doors of every church one Sunday. They arrested every male aged eighteen and older. It seems there was a law, from the days it was a colony, that required every male to carry a firearm whenever they left their domicile. Didn’t take long for that law to be repealed!
Current thinking is that if the no-carry states are forced to issue open carry permits, or even better yet, allow open carry with no permit, they will eventually wake up and "steer" people toward concealed carry. Just because there are many people who are uncomfortable with open carry.
Of course this means that they will have to loosen concealed carry regulations. So, maybe we get what we really wanted through the back door.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Now, I think the speculation is very optimistic at this point. While the 9CA found a right to open carry, they also did not address the requirement for a permit and only found that no permits was not constitutional. They sent the case back to the lower court.
It is perfectly possible for the lower court to find that quite burdensome conditions on permits are reasonable, which will result in another appeal and maybe another smackdown.
One of the problems we have is that Diarmuid O'Scannlain, the real mover behind this decision, is 81. He is not going to sit on the 9 CA forever.
Of course, the "bad states" have to balance the fact that the Supremes are changing and while delay may help them in the 9th, it will not help them in the SC. And, if Our Favorite President can appoint some more conservative judges in the 9 CA we may even gain the upper hand there.
My personal bet is that they cut their losses and start issuing very restrictive open carry permits, which eventually are forced to be much less restrictive.
Goes to show you how much our culture has changed in the last 60-70 years. Used to be if you carried concealed you were nefarious one. The person who openly carried may not have been a good guy; at least he wasn't some dastardly underhanded thug, definitely up to no good. All becasue he wasn't openly carrying his firearm.
Evidently you don’t know how us
STUPID cowboys out here in the
west rely on open carry pistols.
In certain situations, concealed
carry is STUPID.
Open carry is fine.
As long as whiskey or good lookin Irish broads ain’t involved...
;-)