Should Open Carry of Guns Be the Law of the Land? (Poll at link)

[shadowrider]

Proponents say law-abiding citizens have a right to display their protection and that more states should allow it. Foes argue that the proliferation of guns on the streets and in the stores creates a deadly risk. Should open carry be the law of the land?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/15/should-open-carry-of-guns-be-the-law-of-the-land.html

[nevergiveup]

1. The only way you could get into my place of business

with a displayed loaded gun is to shoot me. If this attitude means I must close my business then so be it.

[Callisto32]

35. That's your right.

Edit: Forgot Apostrophe

[PavePusher]

73. It is nice to hear that in these difficult economic times...

some businesses are doing so well that they can display their bigotry "openly".

The Irony is delicious.

[aikoaiko]

100. Do you refuse police in your business?

;)

[SteveM]

104. Just post a sign banning such. What's the big deal? nt

[mediaman007]

2. Yup! We should ride horses, round up cattle, tip our hat to the school marm,

spit tobacco (I guess we already do that), and have a duel at noon everyday, winner takes all!

[The_Commonist]

3. A well regulated militia...

...should be the only people allowed to carry guns.
You don't need a gun in the Starbucks.

[shadowrider]

4. So you're saying all males between 18 and 45 can carry?

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. You are making the very common, if not deliberate, mistake of conflating

a 'well regulated militia' (as specified in the 2nd Am) with the 'unregulated militia' of common law.

[shadowrider]

22. I understand

but the post I was referring to wasn't specific

[Callisto32]

36. Well regulated means "functioning properly."

Like a regulator on a set of SCUBA gear.

But you already knew that.

[Euromutt]

39. Try the "unorganized militia" of the U.S. Code

Specifically 10 USC § 311. "Unorganized" is not the same as "unregulated"; the former merely means not (yet) formed into military units, but rather, forming a manpower pool. And, as has been pointed out ad nauseam in this forum, "well regulated" does not mean "subject to certain regulations," but rather, "functioning properly."

[aikoaiko]

99. Where does the US code speak of this "unregulated militia"?

:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

10. +1. Join a well-regulated militia. nt

[Euromutt]

45. Already there

Being an able-bodied, male, 39 year-old U.S. citizen, 10 U.S.C. § 311 says I'm already a member of the unorganized militia. Note: "unorganized" and "well regulated" are not mutually exclusive, since "unorganized" simply means "not (yet) formed into military units."

Except I can't really be "well regulated" if federal and state law prohibit me from possessing an M4 carbine or M249 SAW. So can we repeal those laws now?

[SteveM]

106. See #36 & #39. Hey! You may be in one yourself! nt

[Llewlladdwr]

40. You don't need a gun in the Starbucks?

And you know this how?

[cowman]

68. There's that

need canard again. It's my right to carry and Starbuck's, bless them, says I can carry in there store as long as it is legal in the state I live in

[shadowrider]

69. At least until several bad guys decide to enter and start shooting

THEN you'd need one, but by then, it's too late.

[SteveM]

105. ...is only one reason for owning firearms. I don't "need" a gun in Starbucks...

any more than I "need" one walking down the street. Unless someone attacks me with violence.

Frankly, Starbucks is doing nothing that they haven't already done before: Following the law.

You can hang your hat on the "militia clause" all day, but you "should" know this: The right to keep and bear arms is established law.

[shedevil69taz]

116. It is also about to be forced upon

the states when the decision on McDonald v. Chicago comes out.

[jazzhound]

117. And then a percentage of the U.S. population will be *forced* to take a good

hard look at their irrational fear. Of course, many will continue to keep spitting insipid venom.

[shedevil69taz]

118. Many gun controllers remind me a lot

of spoiled children so the more they lose on this front I expect to hear louder and louder cries of "but but I want my way NOW!!!". Followed by full blown temper tamtrums where they throw themselves on the floor and kick and scream hoping someone will listen to them.

[AlinPA]

5. Pierce limits it to "properly holstered handgun in plain sight". He doesn't say why you can't carry

around a loaded shotgun.

[PavePusher]

74. I have no problem with a slung long-gun.

Or perhaps one in a back-scabbard.

Or however else you want to carry it, as long as you have good muzzle discipline.

Liberty, it's what's for dinner.

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. I think CT has it right.

You can open carry in CT but if you upset someone because they see your gun then you will be written up for breach of peace. Fair enough. If you are in an area where you feel open carry is necessary and are willing to risk a citation then OK. What the law does do is put on notice those yahoo's that just want to intimidate people like the clown in NH at the town hall meeting.

[shadowrider]

25. So basically

They call people who open carry guns to write a citation to someone that's open carrying a gun. Makes sense to me. :crazy:

[Euromutt]

26. Doesn't work for me

There is a difference between person X actively threatening person Y on the one hand, and person Y feeling threatened by person X on the other. The idea that the criterium for whether or not an offense has been committed should consist of the subjective opinion of a single person is utterly ludicrous. Would you consider it "fair enough" that a same-sex or mixed-race couple could be written up for holding hands in public because doing so gave some lone fundie the vapors? Never mind the "tyranny of the majority"; this opens the way for the tyranny of the minority.

[Callisto32]

37. And thus, society is relegated to the desires of the most sensitive among us.

That's like saying. "A gay couple can hold hands in public, but if it upsets someone, then you will be written up for breach of peace. Fair enough."

No, not fair enough.

Bullshit.

[Bonhomme Richard]

46. I think it provides a nice balance. It doesn't......

infringe on any right to carry a firearm but it does eliminate the intimidation factor. I am sure that there would be, under certain circumstances, a legitimate reason to open carry a pistol but I can't think of any at the moment unless it is job related.

[PavePusher]

75. So, Civil Rights, subject to peoples irrational fears.

If the same logic was applied to African-Americans, or GLBT's, you'd be screaming your head off, and rightfully so.

Some days, all I can say is: "Hypocracy, thy name is 'progressive'".

[SteveM]

107. You are advocating abuse of the law based on someone's "feelings"...

Please explain. If it is lawful in CT to carry openly, then why would you cavalierly suppose "fair enough" subterfuge by letting people report you because they are "upset?"

I have to say that as a nation we are into so much narcissistic hand-wringing and comfort-level obsessions, that I would hate to see such luxuriant catalogs of fear codified into law -- especially when the potential for abuse was so promiscuous.

[msongs]

7. kids at elementary school should be allowed to carry guns, 2nd amnd. doesnt say adults only nt

[The_Commonist]

8. Only if they are part of a well-regulated militia!

You know, like all those Liberian kids...

[GreenStormCloud]

81. You have already lost that battle. Heller was decided a couple of years ago.

And McDonald is expected to be decided about June.

[SteveM]

109. Bzzzzt! Another poster defeated by his/her self. nt

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[safeinOhio]

9. A lot of those open carry people in California do

it piss folks off. I wear Obama tee shirts to guns shows. Now that takes balls.

[X_Digger]

11. I wear obama gear to TX Gun shows. :P n/t

[safeinOhio]

16. any reaction?

I get lots and some of it is positive, not much but some. My hat is off to you and your brass balls.:toast:

[X_Digger]

18. Not these days.

There were quite a few heated conversations in late 2008 / early 2009, especially right after Holder opened his big mouth in Feb / March about reinstating the assault weapons ban.

Might get the stink eye these days, but that's about it.

[jazzhound]

43. "I wear Obama tee shirts to guns shows."

This is GREAT!!!

I've frequently joked with friends that I'd like to frame an Obama bumber sticker with two NRA stickers just to creat cognitive dissonance for a large number of folks.

(for the record.......I'm not currently a member of the NRA)

[onehandle]

12. Looks like this poll has been posted on every internet gun site in existence.

96%? You guys should get some self control.

[marcus5aurelius]

17. Please help me understand

I don't quite understand many of the arguments against open carry. Many people say that if someone gets angry they are likely to start shooting if they have a gun. That's similar to saying nobody can argue in the kitchen because they will be compelled to grab a butcher knife and murder whoevers closest to them. Please explain this to me

[The_Commonist]

20. Do you REALLY want to live in a society...

...where everyone is walking around carrying guns?
Really?
And don't give me that crap about "then only the bad guys will have guns."
Or that line about "an armed society is a polite society."
That's a cop-out, and I've heard it all a million times before.
I don't really want to live in a society where everyone is walking around armed to the teeth.
That's not a society, that's a looney bin.

[Callisto32]

38. Strawman.

Fail.

[Euromutt]

41. Not so much straw man as red herring

Note the complete failure to address the actual question.

And, for that matter, the failure to actually provide any kind of reasoned or evidence-based argument why "only outlaws will have guns" and "an armed society is a polite society" are crap; there is merely the assertion that they are.

Well, okay, the notion that marcus5aurelius was advocating "a society where everyone is walking around armed to the teeth" was a straw man, so you're right there.

[The_Commonist]

49. It's not a strawman, or a red herring.

One of the arguments against open carry, and one that I support, is simply that some of us just don't want a bunch of people walking around with guns. Is that so difficult to understand?
I don't want to live in a society where a bunch of people are walking around with guns strapped to their hips.
That's my answer to the actual question.
End of discussion.
It's that simple.
Why can't people understand and accept that?
You feel differently, for whatever reason.
I and many others just don't want to live in a place where people are walking around with guns.
I don't want to go into the Starbucks and see a bunch of guns.
Call me a pussy for fainting at the sight of a .38 if you like, and I'll call you a pussy for feeling like you need a gun strapped to your hip to get a Grande Latte.
That's how disagreements work.

The other part of that is the incessant whine of "then only bad guys will have guns" and "an armed society is a polite society." These old chestnuts are invariably brought out when someone says that they don't want to live in a society where people are walking around with guns strapped to their hips. These cliches get old, and are a poor substitute for actual thought and debate.

[marcus5aurelius]

51. You're getting way off topic

I addressed your very specific argument that if someone gets into an argument and has a gun, that you assume they will use it to kill or injure the other person. If someone has a knife they will not need to stab someone in an argument, if someone has a hammer they will not have the uncontrollable urge to bash someones head in, and if they have a pillow they will not always attempt to smother that person in their sleep. The fact that in this case it's a gun instead of a knife, hammer, or pillow does not magically make it a different circumstance.

If you honestly believe that if you carried a gun and got into an argument and were forced to shoot that person because you were angry. You're completely right, you should under no circumstance carry a gun. However, many people have much more control of their own actions and will not hurt others only because they are equiped with an inanimate piece of metal.

[The_Commonist]

54. Off topic? How?

The OP was "Should Open Carry of Guns Be the Law of the Land?"

I say no. I don't want to live in a society where people are walking around with guns.
How is that off-topic?

[marcus5aurelius]

55. Well you've made that much clear

The real question is why? I'm not asking based on how it makes you feel or "I don't like it" as a response. Using facts and figures, why is it a bad idea? You have the floor.

[The_Commonist]

66. Now you're trying to introduce...

...apples to my pile of oranges, there, newbie.
I don't have time for yo anymore.
Have a great life!

[jazzhound]

90. Of course you don't have time to debate with anyone who

doesn't believe in emotion-based argument. Facts? Who needs 'em?!

The Limbaugh's of the Left are no different than the worst elements of the RW --- appealing to the lowest instincts of their fellow men/women.

Your cheap shot (newbie) speaks loudly.

[The_Commonist]

91. Good morning... Yes, it's an emotion based arguement.

And that's a fact.
So?

[tburnsten]

94. It's an emotion-based opinion

You aren't arguing shit.

[jazzhound]

115. The fact that an iteration is poorly constructed or lacks sanity

doesn't disqualify it from being described as an argument. It can be an extremely weak/illogical/dishonest argument, like so many we see here, but it's an argument nevertheless.

It is of course important that we distinguish between opinion and fact because so many of the members of the pro-control side of the argument here at DU don't seem to know the difference.

[jazzhound]

95. tburnsten sums it up. n/t

[cowman]

71. Well Luckily

we don't have a Bill of Wants, we have a Bill of Rights and it says I can Keep and Bear Arms. My guns are no threat to anyone but criminals who would do me harm. Your wants are not my concern

[tburnsten]

93. It's an opinion, not an argument

And no one called or was planning on calling you a pussy.

Three points for using your imagination to attempt to legitimize your wild assertions.

[SteveM]

111. More problems with your "arguments:"

"One of the arguments against open carry, and one that I support, is simply that some of us just don't want a bunch of people walking around with guns. Is that so difficult to understand?"

"Some of us" I can understand. Just don't make a law based on your "wants."

"End of discussion. It's that simple." Choose to end the discussion if you wish. But "actual thought and debate" requires engagement. My response is that I am not particularly concerned with your wants, needs, feelings, etc., except as one human being relating to another. These emotions are NOT the purview of law in this nation. Do you agree?

[Euromutt]

119. "A poor substitute for actual thought and debate"; that sums up your post

Your response was utterly irrelevant to Marcus5Aurelius' question; in that regard it was a red herring.
The straw man was the assertion that anyone advocates "a society where everyone is walking around armed to the teeth." At the risk of coming off as pedantic, a handgun, a folding knife and a pepper spray does not constitute "armed to the teeth"; an automatic rifle or SMG with six reloads, a handgun with two reloads, a brace of grenades, a fixed-blade knife, and a GPMG on a pintle mount on the roof of the car, that's getting close to "armed to the teeth." Throw in artillery support on call, and you're just about there.

I don't want to live in a society where a bunch of people are walking around with guns strapped to their hips.
That's my answer to the actual question.
End of discussion.
It's that simple.
Why can't people understand and accept that?

I understand that that is what you want, though since you're not willing to argue your case, I can't fully understand why, and more importantly, I cannot reason against whatever fears you harbor that cause you to feel that way.

And I can "accept" your position in the sense that I can be resigned to the idea that you will not be budged from it by reasoned argument, but that doesn't mean I have to accept your position as realistic, or defer to it as a desirable model for a society. There is no society on Earth that doesn't have "a bunch of people" carrying guns, albeit not necessarily on their hips, but in pockets or slung over their shoulders instead.

The other part of that is the incessant whine of "then only bad guys will have guns" and "an armed society is a polite society." These old chestnuts are invariably brought out when someone says that they don't want to live in a society where people are walking around with guns strapped to their hips. These cliches get old, and are a poor substitute for actual thought and debate.

That's a laugh, given that your dismissal of these phrases contained exactly zero reasoned argument. For that matter, your entire post was a dismissal of debate, not an attempt to engage in it.

I'm originally from the Netherlands, a country where private ownership of firearms was placed under severe restrictions in 1919, in order to prevent a forcible overthrow of the government as had happened in Russia and Germany (which tells you how strong the government thought their claim to legitimacy was, and the same applies to France, the UK, and various other countries). Half a century later, the general populace had become so accustomed to the idea that normal private citizens don't own guns that it wasn't until my teens that I learned you could even own a firearm as a private citizen (under stringent restrictions). In my twenties, I learned that Dutch gun control laws weren't actually very effective at keeping firearms out of the hands of the criminal element, when I narrowly--and only by sheer luck--escaped being caught up in two gun crimes, which drove the point home much more closely than the rash of "liquidations" between marijuana growers/traffickers that took place throughout that decade (yeah, possession of marijuana is decriminalized, but in typical half-assed Dutch fashion, cultivation and import is not; as a result, the "coffee shops" can sell marijuana quasi-legally, but they can only buy their merchandise from full-on "hire Yugoslav goons to whack the competitors"-type organized criminals).

Still, at that time I figured that at least gun control kept firearms out of the hands of the killers "who would have been considered law-abiding citizens until they pulled the trigger." In my thirties, I learned that those who genuinely matched that description were responsible for a comparatively miniscule percentage of homicides--and even less for other gun crimes--and that the criminological evidence indicated that the number of crimes foiled by defensive gun uses in the United States far outweighs the number of crimes committed using firearms.

The fact is that, hoary cliche as the phrase "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" may be, like most cliches, it is accurate (and overused as a result). I've lived in societies where carrying a firearm in public was illegal for private citizens, and visited many others, but curiously, the agents of the state always seemed to feel the need to carry guns; not just handguns, but SMGs and even assault rifles. Now why would they need to do that, unless they acknowledged the possibility that the criminal element might not obey the law prohibiting private possession and carry of firearms? And where does that leave the non-criminally inclined private citizen?

[HALO141]

120. OK, look at it this way, then...

One of the arguments against open carry, and one that I support, is simply that some of us just don't want a bunch of people walking around with guns. Is that so difficult to understand?


On the contrary, I quite understand. I just doesn't matter to me. Or, to be more specific, I MIGHT (and that represents a very small order of probability) take a passing interest as an intellectual question but certainly no where near enough of an interest to cause me to entertain the notion of altering my behavior. Why should YOUR desires trump my own? The simple answer is that they don't. I you don't want to go into the Starbucks and see a bunch of guns then don't go. Or don't look. I really don't give two shits what you do and the fact that you think I'm somehow obligated to do so is really quite bewildering.

The simple fact is that even where it's legal it's still uncommon for people to avail themselves of that right. 43 states allow open carry and have for quite some time. People don't really see them in their day-to-day operations.

[TheWraith]

122. Because it's not your right to dictate what others are allowed to do. Why can't you accept that?

You don't get to tell someone whether they're allowed to own and carry a gun any more than the fundie down the street should get to decide on whether the gay couple two blocks over can get married. Somebody in Denver shouldn't decide whether it's okay for a guy in Omaha to smoke a joint. It's nobody else's business. Period. The claims about such things doing harm to society have long since proven to be utter bullshit. If you want to have a society where you're free from people interfering in your life, you also have to accept things that YOU disagree with happening in public.

[Callisto32]

60. The strawman was "you want everybody to carry guns around!!"!!"!"

[The_Commonist]

65. Fair enough.

[cowman]

70. People already are armed

most of us just carry concealed, chances are you come in close contact with a CHL holder every day and not know it.

[GreenStormCloud]

83. Wouldn't bother me. N/T

[proteus_lives]

98. Humanity managed quite well.

Before guns, it was other weapons.

Most people went armed throughout history.

Unless someone in authority forced them not to. Usually not for helpful reasons.

[SteveM]

110. Do you REALLY want some serious answers...

to your questions? Really?
I don't want criminals/punks/thugs carrying guns, and the law already bans them from doing so.
I don't want kids "walking around" carrying guns, and the law already bans them from doing so.
I don't want mental incompetents carrying guns, and the law already bans them from doing so.

So, that's a good hunk of the population, no?
Furthermore, only a third of so of the population is armed, a rather stable figure, and a much smaller percentage of those have CCW, and fewer still open-carry. Why do you live in fear of something which hasn't really changed much over our lifetimes?

You need to hear this loud and clear: ban guns and outlaws will be the only ones (outside of LEO, celebrities and pols) which will have them. No cop-out, but HARD-forged truth. Think: "Pfffft -- hhhuh ------ phewww." Pass it to the left-hand side.

I don't know about the polite society bit (given the propensity for internet punking to take to the streets), but one can hope.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Who carries a kitchen around with them 24/7? nt

[shadowrider]

23. I don't carry a butcher knife

But I do carry one that has a 4" blade, is razor sharp and half the blade is serrated.

[spin]

61. The problem with a blade thats half serrated ...

is that it is a poor compromise.

I carry a four inch fixed blade plain edged knife as well as a four inch fully serrated folder.



Bark River Knife and Tool Classic Lite Hunter



Spyderco Endura

[GreenStormCloud]

84. Do you ever have arguments while in the your home?

There are lots of potential murder weapons in every room in your home. By your standards you should be terrified to be at home.

[onehandle]

24. If you can't see the difference between carrying a gun around and let's say...

...carrying a sock puppet around.

Then I doubt I have the power to teach you.

[Pavulon]

32. Bottom Line. This is a giant fucking landmine. Bait.

if the party does not fully support legal gun owners by continuing to support laws that make ownership easier for legal owners they are in trouble.

Gun control is a joke, always has been, the scare tactics used in the 90's proved to be bamboozles and were useless at everything except pissing off voters and getting newt in.

[PavePusher]

76. You're right....

Sock-puppets are generally much less polite than open carriers.

[cowman]

88. Quite frankly

I don't want you teaching me a darn thing. I've probably forgotten more than you ever learned

[SteveM]

112. Ah, the great teacher has spoken. nt

[Euromutt]

42. Good luck getting an honest answer to that one

It's a question I've frequently asked of people who assert that "if you lose your temper and there's a gun in the house (or on your person), you might use it to shoot the person you're angry at." If I'm supposedly capable of flying into a homicidal rage that easily, then why wouldn't I grab one of the various chef's knives in the kitchen, or a wrench from the tool box in the garage, or a TV tray table from the den, or a curtain rod from just about any room in the house, and more to the point, if it's supposedly that easy for me to become homicidal, why haven't I already?

If past performance is anything to go by, the responses you'll get will consist of evasion with a dash of personal abuse thrown in, but nobody will actually provide a reasoned and plausible answer to your question.

[Katya Mullethov]

48. Life is what your thoughts make it

A smart dude said that .

[AlinPA]

50. When I hear "open carry" I think about someone walking into a liquor store carrying a shotgun.

That's about as open as you can get. More definition is needed for a law that allows everyone to walk around carrying guns.

[ManiacJoe]

59. As long as it is not carried in your hands,

where is the problem? Not the most convenient weapon to carry, but to each his own.

[AlinPA]

62. So "carrying" is not carrying? When I carry things I hold them in my hands. The law should

be explicit about what "carry" means. Also those other folks in the liquor store might freak out, not to mention the clerks.

[marcus5aurelius]

64. You know...

I always believed that it was every man's right to carry a firearm for protection of his life. After reading your post, I take it all back. I believe you should never be allowed near a firearm. Everyone else however is free to do as they please.

[AlinPA]

67. I've been using guns for many years. No problems so far.

[ManiacJoe]

72. You know better than that.

Guns are "carried" in holsters or by slings. Guns are "held" and "used" when in your hands.

If you are carrying properly, you don't have much control over the "freak out" moments of others.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I carry a knife at all times. Haven't stabbed anyone either.

[HALO141]

121. Meh... You're just not living up to your potential. (Joke!) hahah! n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Well, I haven't shot anybody yet, so maybe my self control is just fine?!

[beevul]

89. It is far more liklely...

It is far more liklely that the bradyesque of america have all voted.

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

101. We're active, we care about our rights, and that's why you people are LOSING

:nuke:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gman2]

14. And yes, I get my opinions from listening to the reasons why they want to open carry.

[X_Digger]

123. *sniff* we hardly knew ye (and didn't care to.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=125824

[X_Digger]

15. St Angelo's question isn't really consistent..

Or at least the proponent / foe statements.

"Proponents say law-abiding citizens have a right to display their protection and that more states should allow it. Foes argue that the proliferation of guns on the streets and in the stores creates a deadly risk. Should open carry be the law of the land?"

The _method_ of carry (open v concealed) has nothing to do with 'proliferation'. I don't know anyone who had bought a gun _just because_ they could open carry who didn't otherwise already have a gun.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into the question or the responses.

btw, I immediately discount any article by Rep Carolyn McCarthy, aka Rep "Shoulder thing that goes up". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U Anyone who can't be bothered to learn about what they're trying to legislate can't be trusted on the subject (and generally you have to wonder what else she doesn't know about yet has voted on).

[Pavulon]

27. No Universal CCW rules should.

nothing against OC but I dont carry to make a political statement. Just like my marriage my ccw should work in all 50 states.

[Historic NY]

28. one had to check their guns in Tombstone.

[X_Digger]

30. "except the same be carried openly in sight, and in the hand"?

I don't think this makes the point you really intended ;)

[Pavulon]

31. And there used to be a Poll Tax too.

this issue is done. All it does is piss off voting gun owners, has zero impact on crime.

[onehandle]

47. Tell it like it is, Rosa Parks! nt

[Pavulon]

78. Oh that was used against anyone power did not like, Irish, Blacks..

you have nothing. You are pushing a dead cause. There will never be more gun control. It is finished in the US and you can expect nationwide ccw soon.

[SteveM]

113. I heard from Harriet Tubman and Fannie Lou Hamer. nt

[Euromutt]

33. There were Jim Crow laws at the time, too

Took another seventy years before they were finally ruled unconstitutional, but the fact that they were ultimately ruled unconstitutional means they were always unconstitutional. Similarly, the fact that certain city ordinances were never challenged doesn't mean they were legal to begin with.

[PavePusher]

77. And that was entirely Unconstitutional.

I think. Can't remember if AZ was a state then. I'll look it up later.

[GreenStormCloud]

85. AZ wasn't a state then. Became a state in 1912. N/T

[PavePusher]

86. Oops, my bad.

Guess it wasn't Unconstitutional? Or did the Constitution still apply to Territories?

[pipoman]

97. Probably more likely to apply to territories than states

as states are sovereign by definition, territories are governed by federal decree IIRC.

[Callisto32]

34. McCarty?

Really?

I mean, really?

[Katya Mullethov]

44. Sans "shoulder things " ? Absolutely !

No shoulder thing though .

[David West]

56. Should open carry be the law of the land?

On public land, yes. On private property, no. I'm as pro-gun as they come but I think we need to respect peoples right to dictate the rules on their property. If they want to refuse me entrance for carrying a gun, so be it. I'll just take my business elsewhere.

I don't see why so many people are in an uproar over this. Everyone keeps bringing up Starbucks and stores and how you don't need guns there, but I don't see anything about this forcing store owners to let gun owners carry on their property. Why can't we just settle this as a matter or property rights instead of making it an emotional argument about guns? If I own the land (and we ALL own and finance public land) I have a right to be armed, as well as the right to permit others to be armed. Naturally, if I don't own the land then my ability to carry is merely a privilege granted me by the owner.

For those of you that are so against this, does your supposed "right" to drink your coffee without having to *GASP!* see a gun supersede the right of the owner to run his business how he chooses and let people carry if he sees fit? If you don't like a store's policies don't shop there, it's that simple. I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that our wallets are as powerful a means of voting as any.

[X_Digger]

58. Agreed, and well put. n/t

[shadowrider]

63. For the record, I agree with you

If a private property owner doesn't want firearms on the premises, I'm not going to argue and will abide by his/her wishes. I'll simply take my money elsewhere.

[jazzhound]

79. I'll second X_Diggers "Agreed, and well put." n/t

[jody]

57. I love such OPs, they give people opportunities to demonstrate total ignorance of RKBA as decided by

SCOTUS in DC v. Heller.

Pre-existing rights do not depend upon our Constitution for legitimacy and an amendment to eliminate those rights would itself be unconstitutional.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. I posted a comment there, as username Carrying Safely.

I reminded folks of her barrel shroud debacle.

[PavePusher]

82. Ha, me too... Same screen name. n/t

[PavePusher]

87. Err, meaning the same screen name I use hear. Not the same one you used... n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

96. I assumed that was what you meant. N/T

[tburnsten]

92. Doesn't matter much

For the most part, it IS the law of the land.

[aikoaiko]

102. Rep McCarthy

I know her family was victimized by gun violence (for which I have much sympathy) but she has no data to support her position.

In the summer of 2009, a man stood just outside a venue in New Hampshire with President Obama inside talking about healthcare reform. He had a gun openly strapped to his thigh. Another time while the president was giving a speech at the convention center in Phoenix, a dozen people were openly carrying guns, including one who walked around with an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back. In this session of Congress, laws were passed to allow guns on Amtrak trains and in our national parks. Where does it end? When will people realize that we are moving backwards in reducing gun violence? And now it is happening throughout the states.

Clearly gun violence has been decreasing and remain at record lows even as we have increased the opportunities for law abiding folks to keep and bear arms.

[tburnsten]

114. To her feeble mind it seems

that people having guns at all IS the violent crime, not actual shootings.

Clearly all of those people outside the NH convention center went home to continue murdering, robbing, and firing recklessly at schoolbuses and neighbors homes, business as usual.

[Ter]

103. It already is the law off the land

Despite what any ignorant judge or politician says.