Open Carry vs Concealed carry.

[RetiredGySgt]

The 2nd Amendment states clearly that we Americans have the Right to keep and bear arms.

I want to discuss the "Bear" part.

I don't open carry. Not because I oppose it, but because I would rather my weapon be a surprise to someone who is wanting to do harm. I don't want to put a target on my back.

But then the open carry would, could, and should let those who would do harm to me know upfront that they are going to a fight on their hands and prevent most of it.

It's a "Six of one, half dozen of the other" situation.

I've been watching videos on youtube of the open carry people who are stopped by the police. While there are the few who simply treat it as it should be treated. A person who is no more a threat than a person who is concealed carrying.

But then there have been the others who say that the open carry "scares and alarms" the citizens and is a basis for charging them with disturbing the peace.

I support those who are open carrying in States where it is legal. I believe it should be legal everywhere.

If a citizen calls in saying they are afraid because someone is open carrying, they need to be asked or told that unless that person is waving the gun around, pointing it at people, threatening to shoot someone, there is no law being broken.

How would/should the police respond to a caller saying they are afraid because there is a group of Black men or Hispanic men walking down the street at night? They aren't doing anything illegal, just exerting their right to walk down a street.


Should a person's right be restricted simply because someone is "afraid"?

One correction regarding your first line,

"The 2nd Amendment states clearly that we Americans have the Right to keep and bear arms."

Actually it doesn't. A literal reading of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear a "well-regulated militia" has such a right. As it happens, it's the Supreme Court who has decided that it also means individual citizens have the right, militia or not. Give credit where credit's due.

As to the topic of open-carry. If it's legal where you are, and you're ok answering law enforcements' questions everytime one shows up go right ahead. Still subject to any other local laws which apply to CCW like gun-free zones so you'd either have to not shop at such places or come up with some means of functioning in your area if such zones exist and you need to make use of them.

Are good sites to help with understanding your local laws like
OpenCarry.org | ?A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost?

Wrong as usual, if one actual understands the English language past 5th grade level one would understand that as constructed the sentence provides an individual right while listing one of many reasons for that right.

 

[Ringel05]

The 2nd Amendment states clearly that we Americans have the Right to keep and bear arms.

I want to discuss the "Bear" part.

I don't open carry. Not because I oppose it, but because I would rather my weapon be a surprise to someone who is wanting to do harm. I don't want to put a target on my back.

But then the open carry would, could, and should let those who would do harm to me know upfront that they are going to a fight on their hands and prevent most of it.

It's a "Six of one, half dozen of the other" situation.

I've been watching videos on youtube of the open carry people who are stopped by the police. While there are the few who simply treat it as it should be treated. A person who is no more a threat than a person who is concealed carrying.

But then there have been the others who say that the open carry "scares and alarms" the citizens and is a basis for charging them with disturbing the peace.

I support those who are open carrying in States where it is legal. I believe it should be legal everywhere.

If a citizen calls in saying they are afraid because someone is open carrying, they need to be asked or told that unless that person is waving the gun around, pointing it at people, threatening to shoot someone, there is no law being broken.

How would/should the police respond to a caller saying they are afraid because there is a group of Black men or Hispanic men walking down the street at night? They aren't doing anything illegal, just exerting their right to walk down a street.


Should a person's right be restricted simply because someone is "afraid"?

One correction regarding your first line,

"The 2nd Amendment states clearly that we Americans have the Right to keep and bear arms."

Actually it doesn't. A literal reading of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear a "well-regulated militia" has such a right. As it happens, it's the Supreme Court who has decided that it also means individual citizens have the right, militia or not. Give credit where credit's due.

As to the topic of open-carry. If it's legal where you are, and you're ok answering law enforcements' questions everytime one shows up go right ahead. Still subject to any other local laws which apply to CCW like gun-free zones so you'd either have to not shop at such places or come up with some means of functioning in your area if such zones exist and you need to make use of them.

Are good sites to help with understanding your local laws like
OpenCarry.org | ?A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost?

The well regulated militia argument is a fairly recent one (at least the current interpretation is), The Supreme Court simply reasserted what was already a given from the time the Constitution was penned and ratified. A quick search of the Founding Father's writings on the subject is all you need to do to verify my statement. Granted the Supremacy clause has holes and limitations but if taken at face value all states that have laws in conflict with federal law (in this case the Second Amendment) are in truth in violation of the law. One of the reasons OBama has been pushing hard to expand background checks and limitations on magazine capacity. That way the Feds can force states with no or minimal restrictions to follow federal law.

 

[LOki]

"The 2nd Amendment states clearly that we Americans have the Right to keep and bear arms."

Actually it doesn't. A literal reading of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear a "well-regulated militia" has such a right. As it happens, it's the Supreme Court who has decided that it also means individual citizens have the right, militia or not. Give credit where credit's due.

It is literally impossible to have a rational discussion with someone whose perceptions are so divorced from reality.

There is no reasoning with the irrational.