Posted on 03/22/2011 5:36:03 AM PDT by marktwain
WINTER PARK, Fla. -- In Florida, gun owners can't holster their guns outside of their clothing, but that could change if a piece of legislation turns into law.
It's called "open carry" and it's drawing plenty of attention from advocates and opponents alike.
Charles O'Meara of Shoot Straight, a firearms store, thinks the law would scare those who don't own guns and create opportunities for crime.
"I don't think it's fair to make those people feel uncomfortable, but the bigger part is, what happens when someone walks up behind the gun owner and pulls the gun out of its holster? Now you have someone who should not have one, with a gun in their hands," said O'Meara.
SURVEY Do you think open carry should pass? Yes No Results | Disclaimer | E-Mail
Under House Bill 517, which has already passed in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, a person would need to have a valid concealed weapon or firearm license in order to carry a weapon or firearm openly.
(Excerpt) Read more at wesh.com ...
That's one way to look at it, and I'm all for you open carrying. But another way of looking at it is, some dirtbag with a $75 .25 caliber Raven might cap you in the back of the head point blank to get the $750 .40 caliber you are advertising.
Say you are at a public venue, walking around for a while. A dozen or more criminals might covet your piece, and decide to follow you into the public men's room, 30 seconds behind. While you're unzipping, BANG, from behind.
Sure, I know, your Magic Ninja Powers mean you have 360* vision, 24/7, so it could NEVER happen.
>I’ll keep mine concealed, thanks.
>
>Others may look at it differently, but I never want to give away the element of surprise.
I can understand that psychologically; however, the “element of surprise” argument is perhaps overrated: the only time it is ever a factor is *after* the shit has hit the fan. {Unless you’re a hit-man, walking up to your mark and using “the element of surprise” to do the deed.} Open carry, on the other hand has been shown to deter crimes by making the otherwise-victim into a more difficult/dangerous target: it is the same effect as when DC home robberies went down after the USSC said in Heller that residents thereof could indeed have firearms for home defense.
I prefer constitutional carry for open and concealed and when it prints under your clothing.
Looking good so far.
Do you think open carry should pass?
Do you think open carry should pass?
Choice Votes Percentage of 727 Votes
Yes 553
76%
No 174
24%
Thank you for voting in our survey.
I agree. Tactically it’s just better to not advertise my weapon in advance of needing it.
Open carry needs to be legal, mainly because it’s practical for those times when carrying concealed I might inadvertantly expose it. It shouldn’t suddenly become illegal. That, and there are a few occasions when it might be useful to have the option to just strap on a holster in the open. Not many, but some. It’s just illogical that if it’s legal when concealed it can be illegal in the open.
Indeed.
If I were on a jury where a person was texting/phoning and almost hit someone crossing the street who then retaliated by shooting that driver I doubt I'd convict -- IMO it would be self defense against attempted vehicular homicide.
Hm, intriguing line of reasoning. However, I will point out that the 2ND Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, does not proscribe any punishment for infractions thereof. {Treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution, does not proscribe a punishment but instead prohibits certain punishments: "corruption of blood" IIRC.}
So, what do you think of US Code Title 18, Part 13, Section 241 which says:
| 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; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. |
Personally, I feel the benefits of open carry outweigh the potential disadvantages. Retention holster technology has come a long way since the old leather flap and snap days.
I love my Blackhawk CQC, but it still "scares the sheep" up here to see folks carrying openly and honestly.
You are confusing the point by assuming carrying a weapon or not carrying a weapon is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not a Law wherein such has a remedy for violating it.
The 2nd Amendment affirms we the citizens have a right to defend ourselves by use of arms. Thus a state law saying we are allowed to openly carry a weapon (or carry a concealed one) is redundant and more importantly Unconstitutional being Federal Law Trumps State Law and The Constitution Trumps all.
More precisely: Any Law be it Federal State or Municipal that either hinders or permits a citizen to own or carry a weapon is Unconstitutional. If the Founding Fathers were alive today they would storm Congress and tar and feather every damn Congress Critter condemning them all for their treasonous usurpation of our Founding Documents.
>>”I will point out that the 2ND Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, does not proscribe any punishment for infractions thereof.”
>
>You are confusing the point by assuming carrying a weapon or not carrying a weapon is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not a Law wherein such has a remedy for violating it.
No, I’m not. There is no punishment for any law (Federal, State, County, Municipality, etc) which does violate the 2nd Amendment: that is, any which infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
>The 2nd Amendment affirms we the citizens have a right to defend ourselves by use of arms.
Agreed.
>Thus a state law saying we are allowed to openly carry a weapon (or carry a concealed one) is redundant and more importantly Unconstitutional being Federal Law Trumps State Law and The Constitution Trumps all.
This is incorrect. Federal law does NOT trump State law; as per the 10th Amendment any law which is outside the explicit scope of the federal government as set forth by the Constitution is contra-constitutional and null and void. {Though [federal] judges will fight this “wrong interpretation” to their dying breath; it would strip them of much power.}
Furthermore, redundancy is a good thing. I live in New Mexico which has in its State Constitution the following:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense,
for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall
be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate,
in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and
November 2, 1986.)
Using this portion of the State Constitution I can challenge a state law which, say, prohibits firearms on school properties w/o having to take the case into a federal court. But it ALSO means that, should I lose such a suit, I could ‘re-apply’ and challenge it on @nd Amendment issues. It is in this way that redundancy concerning the affirmation of rights, to the exclusion of the legitimacy of [some] laws, is a VERY good thing.
Lastly, the doctrine of “incorporation” is, as applied, a horrible and terrible thing to the states. Why? Because the restrictions as-written in the Bill of Rights *must* have their wording changed in order to apply to the states. Consider the 1st Amendment; it prohibits the Congress from producing laws which, for one, prohibit the exercise of religion*. Most States have a Legislature, which is *NOT* a Congress. But under incorporation the States are held to be barred from passing any law which prohibits religious expression.
* Religious exercise was chosen at random; and is actually likely moot point in regards to incorporation as all the State Constitutions I’ve seen guarantee Freedom of Religion; the real point is that the actual text of the Constitution *MUST* be changed in order to apply to the States as it currently does; and if the Judiciary can declare these changes-in-text to apply to the states then the Judiciary has de facto Amendment power over the Constitution.
>More precisely: Any Law be it Federal State or Municipal that either hinders or permits a citizen to own or carry a weapon is Unconstitutional.
Agreed; though I prefer the term “contra-Constitutional” as ‘unconstitutional’ is so overused as to be rather impotent.
>If the Founding Fathers were alive today they would storm Congress and tar and feather every damn Congress Critter condemning them all for their treasonous usurpation of our Founding Documents.
Quite agreed.
And they’d probably hang the Supreme Court*; a more lawless branch of government does not exist than the Judiciary.
*There are several USSC decisions that are absolutely horrid, like Kelo v. New London, which in effect cancels any 5th Amendment protection from imminent domain. Also, Roe v. Wade can be argued as being Treasonous because: the second amendment afirms that the militia is nessacary to the security of a free state, and the State Constitutions [typically] include all males of 18-45 as being in the militia, so the wholesale slaughter of unborn MALE Citizens from `73 to `93 —all of whom would be militia age by now— which is somewhere between 14.2 million and 16.8 million** of which the militia has been deprived: such deprivation of fighting souls is a traditional aid for enemies (and qualifies for giving aid to the enemies of the States).
** http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html, abortions from `73 to `93 summed and multiplied by .56 (statistically there is a higher probability for conceiving a boy than a girl).
Additional protections for our Rights at the State level are just fine. It’s the additional infringements that are unConstitutional.
I love the change that has taken place on FR!
There used to be a small crowd here that pushed OC... everyone else was in the "a unconcealed weapon is a death wish" crowd.
I have watched with glee as the transformation started taking place throughout the United States, when people would finally say enough to "political correctness" and grab their Rights back... I even like to think that I helped to accelerate the cause, after we got band of idiotic "open carry" advocates to stand in a field outside of D.C. and announce that no more infringements would be tolerated... we hereby reclaim our Rights.
I do not surrender my "Rights" because another citizen may "feel" one way or the other about how I practice them.
When the weather permits, I OC almost everywhere.
People who do not OC would be amazed that probably 98% of the people either do not notice a gun on you, or notice and do not care.
I have been in the supermarket with the gun on my hip and rarely do I even get a glance. Part of this may be due to the fact that I always to to OC when I am clean shaven, relatively well dressed, and do not mind smiling to most everyone I meet, as like it or not, when you OC you represent millions of law abiding gun owners.
Freedom is carrying a gun; freedom is NOT hiding that gun.
Same here, pretty much all feedback I have gotten is positive, Many times if someone does notice, it is good conversation starter.
And by the way, we'll be holding another "Restore the Constitution" Armed Rally in downtown Atlanta this weekend... So keep an eye on the news, as I'm sure there will be many reports of "bad guys" yanking guns out of our holsters... killing us and then committing various heinous crimes with our weapons.
Not really, you gotta remember Glocks are one of the "popular" guns, seems everyone has at least one, especially in my area where Glock has a mfg plant ;-)
Many times it starts as, "Got one, whats your model?".
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.