52 replies to this topic

[Chris]

wazzle, on Jul 9 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

I thought I was done too, but, 48 states have conceal carry, I don't understand the reason for even wanting open carry. I sure never plan on walking around with a gun on my belt if I can walk around with it concealed. I just believe asking for open carry will hinder, not help the cause. We stand a better chance at matching conceal carry laws like states around us have, not going for something different.   Rant off

I like to have open carry, not to "open carry" but to be able to conceal carry a bit more casually. Especially during the summer.

[billzfx4]

Big Chris, on Jul 9 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

wazzle, on Jul 9 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

I thought I was done too, but, 48 states have conceal carry, I don't understand the reason for even wanting open carry. I sure never plan on walking around with a gun on my belt if I can walk around with it concealed. I just believe asking for open carry will hinder, not help the cause. We stand a better chance at matching conceal carry laws like states around us have, not going for something different.   Rant off

I like to have open carry, not to "open carry" but to be able to conceal carry a bit more casually. Especially during the summer.

I agree.  A "right to carry", similar to Indiana, would be ideal.  I myself would prefer to carry concealed, but not have to worry should the gun peek out from under my shirt.

[SAK]

I'd like the option to choose myself.  I would most likely conceal carry at times, and open carry at other times.  I'm not sure what occasions there are that concealed carry would be better, but I'd have to give it some more thought.  Bottom line, it would be excellent if we could choose.

I don't like how they mentioned that concealed carry prohibitions have been upheld.  However, I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean they have ruled the 2A doesn't protect concealed carry.  It could be construed that way, but that isn't necessarily what it means.

This is perhaps one of the most powerful points of the ruling:

Quote

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia
Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as
protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore
struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion
perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of
the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced
in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English
right:
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men,
women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and
bear arms of every description, and not such merely as
are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed,
or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and
all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing
up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally
necessary to the security of a free State. Our
opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant
to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes
this right, originally belonging to our forefathers,
trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked
sons and successors, re-established by the revolution
of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists,
and finally incorporated conspicuously in our
own Magna Charta!”

Emphasis added of course.

So by golly, according to that, there shouldn't be any restrictions.  I wish the entire decision were uniformed and spelled out better.  But what were we supposed to expect?


Let's run with that the 2A protects BOTH forms.

[richp]

SAK, on Jul 9 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

Let's run with that the 2A protects BOTH forms.

Amen

Rich

[Mr. Runyon]

I just wanted to say that I was open carrying on my own property the other day while grilling out.
It actually felt kind of natural to have a gun on my hip.

I would be completely for open carry. If you want to conceal your firearm that is fine with me, it's just kinda hard for me hide my 1911.

[BobbyT]

Just to rephrase/reiterate my point for those of you who don't see a "need" for OC:
I do not think OC will "force" CC on anti-rights politicians.  I also don't desire to OC.

I'm saying that when you use those terms, you set up a whole area for interpretation that will necessarily be restrictive.  If people have the right to "carry" (just carry, however they see fit), then the issue is moot.  People have the right to bear arms, period.  Almost all will choose to conceal as a practical concern, but as an individual decision...legally they should just be "carrying", and that's that.

When you categorize "open" and "concealed" carry, you've set up two separate "rights" with different restrictions on each.  You just give one more way for anti-rights politicians to attack rights, because they have two fronts to attack on, as they restrict one they can claim you still have the other so it's not a ban, and perhaps most importantly they can come up with a dozen ways to harass those exercising their rights based on what "category" their carrying falls into!

With just a right to "carry" and no strings attached, there is no wiggle room to clamp down on people.  Once you invent the idea of different "rights" (different levels of infringement being allowed depending on how you bear your arms?), you will have every anti having people busted for printing, or because they removed their holster from their belt in the car, or for any other possibility their creative little Statist minds can think of.  You'll also inconvenience every law abider who instead of just strapping on his gun every day has to plan his wardrobe around keeping fully concealed in 90+ temps and whether or not he might end up making a motion that would reveal the tip of a handle.

While we have the chance, why paint ourselves into a corner?  There is no reason to restrict peoples' rights for the sake of some possible pragmatic advantage.  If we were fighting for 1st Amendment rights to be recognized would you want to start out crafting specific rules for "political speech" to be allowed, and leave "commercial" or "artistic" speech out because those might be asking too much?  No, you'd recognize that speech is speech, and not give the politicians the room for pointless restrictions in the first place.

[lockman]

Richp4797, on Jul 9 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

Hi Lockman,

Thought I was done, but you've got my brain cells in a twitter.....

While I'm not an attorney, I don't see a distinction between open and concealed carry, as far as it being a Constitutional right. I believe they are equally and importantly asserted as falling under the Second Amendment.

True, Scalia mentions occasions where concealed carry laws were held lawful. But that is not the main thrust of his argument in those segments of the decision. I don't think he goes so far as to say that the two categories must be treated differently for the purposes Heller addresses.

The reason I think this is important is that it's entirely possible we could paint ourselves into a corner -- getting open carry (but not concealed) as lawful, but then being trapped in a society where it's so unusual that a disturbing the peace arrest could still stick.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips

OC and CC work together in perfect harmony.

OC – access, comfort, convenience and visual deterrence.

CC – Stealth, discretion and indirect element of deterrence.

Let’s not get into situations like Florida or Texas where accidental display by wind, fall or snag can result in a citation or prosecution. Florida gave up open carry in 1987 when they passed the shall issue law. It supposedly was an oversight but has stuck so far.

What would disturb most people more? Rightly or wrongly, open carry or inadvertent display of a concealed weapon?

Most people would probably think the concealed weapon was carried by an off duty or undercover LEO but one thing for sure, the bad guy never open carries.

But I understand in this state we have neither so I’ll take whatever ground we get and acquire more at a future date.

[SAK]

I'd be nice to have the option to do both.  Some states with concealed carry are restrictive on how you can carry it (eg. only x inches can be exposed, etc).  No matter what, politicians will look to restrict.

Instead of looking it as two fronts open to attack.  Look at it as it's twice the work for the politicians if they watnt to attack it   I'd rather have two distinct rights recognized by law than one.

The power of open carry to positively change minds is remarkable as well, in my opinion.  When I open carried, no one paid mind to it.  I know they saw it and were thinking about it, but they didn't act differently or look at me funny, and in the end it was 1 more gun to expose them to and get rid of that gun-shyness.

[Mr. Runyon]

BobbyT, on Jul 9 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

Just to rephrase/reiterate my point for those of you who don't see a "need" for OC:
I do not think OC will "force" CC on anti-rights politicians.  I also don't desire to OC.

I'm saying that when you use those terms, you set up a whole area for interpretation that will necessarily be restrictive.  If people have the right to "carry" (just carry, however they see fit), then the issue is moot.  People have the right to bear arms, period.  Almost all will choose to conceal as a practical concern, but as an individual decision...legally they should just be "carrying", and that's that.

When you categorize "open" and "concealed" carry, you've set up two separate "rights" with different restrictions on each.  You just give one more way for anti-rights politicians to attack rights, because they have two fronts to attack on, as they restrict one they can claim you still have the other so it's not a ban, and perhaps most importantly they can come up with a dozen ways to harass those exercising their rights based on what "category" their carrying falls into!

With just a right to "carry" and no strings attached, there is no wiggle room to clamp down on people.  Once you invent the idea of different "rights" (different levels of infringement being allowed depending on how you bear your arms?), you will have every anti having people busted for printing, or because they removed their holster from their belt in the car, or for any other possibility their creative little Statist minds can think of.  You'll also inconvenience every law abider who instead of just strapping on his gun every day has to plan his wardrobe around keeping fully concealed in 90+ temps and whether or not he might end up making a motion that would reveal the tip of a handle.

While we have the chance, why paint ourselves into a corner?  There is no reason to restrict peoples' rights for the sake of some possible pragmatic advantage.  If we were fighting for 1st Amendment rights to be recognized would you want to start out crafting specific rules for "political speech" to be allowed, and leave "commercial" or "artistic" speech out because those might be asking too much?  No, you'd recognize that speech is speech, and not give the politicians the room for pointless restrictions in the first place.

I couldn't agree more!

[BobbyT]

SAK, I'm certain that with they type of Chicago-machine-socialists we have in office, it would be two fronts.  Citizens have lives; politicians don't have real jobs so they get to spend 100% of their time coming up with ways of adding control to our lives, while we can only spend a much smaller portion of our time defending them.

I don't think we would end up with two distinct rights (putting aside the philosophical problem I have with the idea there's some inherent right to "CC" and "OC", with terms attached to each, instead of just the right to defend oneself however he can).

I think we would end up with two half-rights, and having to plan around each to make sure we jump through the appropriate hoops, technically having a right to "CC" and "OC" but with all kinds of ways to be charged for partial-OC, partial-CC occurrences.  If you have to make special plans and worry about being in "compliance", you don't really have a right.  A gun should just be a standard tool you grab on your way out, like your keys or a flashlight, without a second thought...if it requires a planning process and bending over backwards then all we will have done is Illinois-ed the right into a privilege, and it's doubtful we'll get a chance to make it better after the second go around.  That's why we need to get it right the first time.  The idea of a special approved way to carry your gun, with a slight difference being arrest-worthy, is just unfathomable to me.  A legal gun owner should not constantly be sitting on the fence an inch away from being charged...he should be confident in his independence, and unharassable by the antis.

Low cost, 10 year or lifetime, shall issue, any method of carry, period.  The chances for it to get more expensive, more restrictive, etc will be there...the chances to make it cheaper, easier, more convenient, or more accessible to the masses will be a nearly impossible battle if we bow to awful compromises in order to make it happen.

[Slappy]

We have to look at this pragmatically...

The Winnebago Board is opening up on this issue but cautiously... we have the votes and our core supporters on the board are obviously gung ho, but there is apprehension here...

if we start demanding too much too soon, we run the risk of turning off people to our side or messing this entire process up...

Change happens but it can rarely be rushed without consequence...

I vote for letting the Board do their best passing CCW as is, and once it is in place and our fence sitters and detractors see its not a threat, push for more...

its one thing to have people covertly carry handguns they are licensed for, its quite another to have them out in public. To most of the public, its a foreign concept and they have to eased into it.

You can't look at this through our eyes, we have to look at it from the average citizen who has no clue this fight is even going on...

[SAK]

I agree with you philosophically, Bobby.  Personally, I'm a libertarian-minded guy who believes there isn't a crime unless there is a victim.  Some people don't understand that concept, but I think it makes 100% sense and anything else does NOT make sense.  Since government exists to protect rights, it doesn't make sense for people to be fined and/or imprisoned when they haven't violated the rights of another.

The board members know they have the open carry option as well, and they have the research to back it up.  So no doubt we shouldn't be demanding anything.  Let's just make sure the votes are there no matter what comes up.  The resolution itself is still not written in stone.  They have a lot more work to do to fine-tune it and come up with the final draft.  So the more options the better in my opinion.  I trust that the guys who started this whole thing -- which by the way is the BEST move I've seen someone in this state do in the last four years -- will make the right decisions in the end

[TTIN]

wazzle, on Jul 9 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

I thought I was done too, but, 48 states have conceal carry, I don't understand the reason for even wanting open carry. I sure never plan on walking around with a gun on my belt if I can walk around with it concealed. I just believe asking for open carry will hinder, not help the cause. We stand a better chance at matching conceal carry laws like states around us have, not going for something different.   Rant off

Well,I've been reading all the fine positions that y'all have,and thought I'd kind of summerize them with my own personal observation.I myself would rather have concealed carry for the reasons that some of y'all have stated.The main thing being to confuse the criminal.However,when it comes to open carry,I don't personally give a rat's patoot about what soccer moms think...their thoughts on how our society should be is way way opposite of how I think.And as for someone being offended,like I have said before,I ain't politically correct.For one thing,I don't believe that gays should have the benefits of marriage,and it pisses me off that the government is allowing this country to drift farther and farther away from God.So when I see these things i.e gays openly,well,acting like gays do,I am expected to just accept it and go along with my life.Well,if that is all true,then the soccer moms can just get used to seeing my gun.And I don't want to hear the ignorant argument that what I don't like in society doesn't affect me,because it does and it affects everyone....think about it!

AND if open carry is indeed a RIGHT,we should be utilizing it and not letting it go the way of other rights that have been abandoned and eliminated.I am NOT agreeing with anyone that we should PUSH open carry.If we find out that it is indeed our right,we should exercise it.

[exit soapbox]

[richp]

Hi,

The point is not how we react to what soccer moms think. It's how politicians react to what soccer moms think. We can't ignore that.

We first need to establish a general environment that is more conducive to urban/suburban folks accepting the fact this is a true right, not an extraordinary privilege (a la aldermen and politicians with bodyguards). When the voters in this state are able to see that guns are not inherently evil, we'll have a much better chance of expanding the exercise of rights that all of us on this board agree have been improperly restricted.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips

[wazzle]

It is quite obvious by all these posts that SAK doesn't care one bit about what everyone else thinks. He has his mind made up on fanny packing and open carry in Winnebago County and will continue to push his "agendas" on the powers to be regardless of how many of us ask him to stop. While the Winnebago County issue and SAFR are group efforts, SAK will do whatever he pleases even if it hinders our goal in the end.

[lockman]

wazzle, on Jul 10 2008, 10:07 AM, said:

It is quite obvious by all these posts that SAK doesn't care one bit about what everyone else thinks. He has his mind made up on fanny packing and open carry in Winnebago County and will continue to push his "agendas" on the powers to be regardless of how many of us ask him to stop. While the Winnebago County issue and SAFR are group efforts, SAK will do whatever he pleases even if it hinders our goal in the end.

The final decisions of what is proposed are solely within the discretion of those that are attending the meetings and pushing the county member’s buttons. The rest of us can only offer advice and opinion. I offer my view, but I am not the one firing off all the emails and traveling to all the meetings so I defer to those most active in the effort.

[Slappy]

lockman, on Jul 10 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

The final decisions of what is proposed are solely within the discretion of those that are attending the meetings and pushing the county member’s buttons. The rest of us can only offer advice and opinion. I offer my view, but I am not the one firing off all the emails and traveling to all the meetings so I defer to those most active in the effort.

Well I am going to the meetings and talking with board members and pushing our agenda and understand that with any bureaucracy changes comes but slowly... we push and we lose votes...

[SAK]

I only made what I think is a valuable legal observation from Heller.  All this legal mumbo jumbo is pretty important.

My mind isn't made up about open carry with this county resolution.  It isn't going to matter what my mind says either.  Same with yours.  What's going to matter is if we support the board or not, if we show up at these meetings, and if we pack the damned place continually before and at the time of the vote.

One of the board members suggested having a rally in Rockford.  I think he's got a great idea.

I'm certainly not going to be pushing anything on the board.  I'll just be working with them and submitting information to them in hopes that they might be able to put the info to good use.


Instead of focusing on what could go wrong, why not focus on what could go right?  I think something great went right today -- SAFR.  Let's get some more rights going.  It's time to park the namby pamby attitute of "that could backfire" at the bottom of Lake Michigan where it belongs.  There's a difference between rational worries and irrational worries.  Wazzle, unless you can give an example of when I was a "hindrance" to the movement, back off please.  I got no problem with anything you do, nor am I going to crap on your idea, so don't crap on mine?  I was talking to a few people at SAFR about this improper attitude exhibited by too many gun owners.

WE'RE WINNING -- WE'RE WINNING -- WE'RE WINNING

Let's start acting like winners.  Winners don't second-guess everything they do and worry about that inevitable mistake.  Winners make so many of the right moves that no matter what it counteracts any slight mistakes.  We're all in this together, and we can all be winners now.  We just won something in court (at least it's a short-term win), so let's go out and win some more.

I want to be a winner on everyone's team as well.  I may have my own strategy, and it's important to have individuals out there going from different angles.  This is what makes this a grassroots movement.  There's no one group, organization, website, committee, or anything else.  It's all of us.  I'm always trying to work on being a team player.  Part of that is letting people go their own way.  I can't remember the last time I told someone "not" to do something.  People like to tell me that all the time.  I get this from the anti-rights people, so I shouldn't be getting it from people here.  Any concerns haven't proven valid past, present, and they won't future either.  Yes, I've been arrested.  And apparently I've lost respect from a few people for that reason.  I've certainly lost trust from some.  That's a damn shame, really.  You shouldn't turn your back on someone who's fighting with you for the same cause unless they've done something WRONG -- meaning they've hurt someone, threatened someone, or otherwise violated or infringed upon the rights of another.  I haven't done that, and I won't.  Anyways, I appreciate the people who came up to me today and thanked me.  I also appreciate the MANY people I saw wearing fannypacks.  That's excellent!!!  There was no negative response -- there wasn't really any reaction or notice.  A few of us talked about fannypacks, but that's about it.  No looks, no suspicion from police, no horrified fashion designers


Any discussion on "pushing" the open carry issue ends here and now.  I just spent the entire day with a county board member and the open carry thing was never even brought up, except for joking how Pearl is our new open carry advocate because of her quote

[Mr. Runyon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the second amendment say the right to keep and bare arms"?
To me that means there is no stipulation to carrying. It simply says that we can, so why not try our best to get open and concealed carry at the same time.
It would be really great if we just pushed for Right To Carry instead of concealed carry or open carry.
That seems to make more sense to me.

[Slappy]

Mr. Runyon, on Jul 12 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the second amendment say the right to keep and bare arms"?

If it said that, I'd wear sleeveless shirts just to prove I'm a patriot...  

[Hossua]

Slappy, on Jul 12 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

Mr. Runyon, on Jul 12 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the second amendment say the right to keep and bare arms"?

If it said that, I'd wear sleeveless shirts just to prove I'm a patriot...  

I sell you a ticket to the "gun" show slappy!

[SAK]

The part that really fries my eggs is that SCOTUS has formerly ruled (don't have it handy, but it will be a part of my report to the board) that there cannot be licenses, permits, fees, or other stipulations or conditions or hoops, etc for RIGHTS.  A right may be exercised without fear of the law, and any law contradictory to this is invalid and unconstitutional.  The latest SCOTUS ruling even quoted...what was it Georgia or Tennessee (I pasted it here) that says the same thing ABOUT GUNS.

So according to that, any of these laws are invalid.  It's remarkable they get away with them.  Right to carry would be awesome indeed without restrictions.  However, knowing that they will love to place restrictions on concealed carry, it would be great to have open carry for anyone with a FOID (the law actually is already like this, EXCEPT you can't do it in incorporated areas).  So nothing drastic or major would change...just simply the fact that NOW you can do it in all areas (with a few exceptions of course) -- even in town.

A little public education, public relations, and proper marketing and this would be a no-brainer.  If the challenge to the state laws regarding concealed weapons fails, we could still fall back on open weapons.

[Mr. Runyon]

Slappy, on Jul 12 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

Mr. Runyon, on Jul 12 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the second amendment say the right to keep and bare arms"?

If it said that, I'd wear sleeveless shirts just to prove I'm a patriot...  

Forgive me for the bad grammar, I had just woken up.