Apparently as many as 45 states have now passed open carry legislation, which is remarkable. That means that more states approve of individuals openly carrying weapons made for killing than there are that approve of same sex persons getting married (only 19 states). Alas, the ridiculousness of open carry does not need comparison to be made apparent.
Why should Open Carry (or OC, as its apologists like to put it) be promoted? What are the reasons for it?
1) The Second Amendment protects the rights to keep and bear arms. This is the elephant in the room. Not only does the 2ndA allow for this, but there is considerable state legislation protecting these rights.
So just to be clear, this is a pretty considerable argument for the gun promoters.
But that does not mean it is a clear and unquestionable amendment. In fact, it is apparently so questionable that numerous states have had to pass legislation to clarify and specify this amendment. And more to the point, 45 states have deemed it necessary to specifically protect OC rights, as I said above.
Just to be clear then, there is nothing in the 2ndA as legislation that specifically protects OC, such that further legislation was not necessary.
So that is considerable legislative basis, but how does it fare in the court of reason? By this what I mean is that we need to separate different kinds of reasons. The former is a reason based on conventional law. But those things change continually and really only reflect the powers of legislative forces. They do not reflect simple rational reflection.
2) Carrying a weapon openly allows one to protect oneself in public places.
But why must she carry openly to protect herself. In fact, her advantage in carrying openly is frightening potential criminals away, right?
Perhaps, imagining that all criminals carefully select the most vulnerable unarmed individuals. But that right comes at the cost of the right to security of others who also occupy public spaces. It is not merely that someone is carrying at home, but OC specifically protects someone's right to carry in a public place.
So what we have here then is a case in which the right of one individual needs to be weighed against the rights of other individuals.
Both the OCer and the NCer (non-carrier) are protected by the police from criminals, some fictional third party that is somehow excluded from these categories. But the NCer also needs to be protected from the OCer as well. The reason for this is that the OCer is carrying a weapon that has no purpose but to kill, and the NCer has no way to know that the OCer has been trained and licensed (no one has to show their carry license to anyone other than a police officer).
Thus, just as an NCer doesn't walk in a highway, for the sake of safety, no NCer should remain in a space where there is an OCer (which might well be called the George Zimmerman rule).
Conclusion: the OCer has perhaps made herself safer (or merely given herself the false sense of security, since there are numerous examples of "good guys with guns" not able to protect themselves from "bad guys with guns"), but she has forced any reasonable NCer to leave and insodoing, restricted the First Amendment rights of NCers and even other OCers.
In fact, one could see the OCer as an example of the violation of prior restraint (this connection brought to you by responsible gun celebrist Walter Sobjchek).
This is only part 1. I'll consider more in another post.
Why should Open Carry (or OC, as its apologists like to put it) be promoted? What are the reasons for it?
1) The Second Amendment protects the rights to keep and bear arms. This is the elephant in the room. Not only does the 2ndA allow for this, but there is considerable state legislation protecting these rights.
So just to be clear, this is a pretty considerable argument for the gun promoters.
But that does not mean it is a clear and unquestionable amendment. In fact, it is apparently so questionable that numerous states have had to pass legislation to clarify and specify this amendment. And more to the point, 45 states have deemed it necessary to specifically protect OC rights, as I said above.
Just to be clear then, there is nothing in the 2ndA as legislation that specifically protects OC, such that further legislation was not necessary.
So that is considerable legislative basis, but how does it fare in the court of reason? By this what I mean is that we need to separate different kinds of reasons. The former is a reason based on conventional law. But those things change continually and really only reflect the powers of legislative forces. They do not reflect simple rational reflection.
2) Carrying a weapon openly allows one to protect oneself in public places.
But why must she carry openly to protect herself. In fact, her advantage in carrying openly is frightening potential criminals away, right?
Perhaps, imagining that all criminals carefully select the most vulnerable unarmed individuals. But that right comes at the cost of the right to security of others who also occupy public spaces. It is not merely that someone is carrying at home, but OC specifically protects someone's right to carry in a public place.
So what we have here then is a case in which the right of one individual needs to be weighed against the rights of other individuals.
 |
| If I met this asshole on the street in Florida, I'd have to run, because he can get away with murder (if I was black and wearing a hoodie). |
Thus, just as an NCer doesn't walk in a highway, for the sake of safety, no NCer should remain in a space where there is an OCer (which might well be called the George Zimmerman rule).
Conclusion: the OCer has perhaps made herself safer (or merely given herself the false sense of security, since there are numerous examples of "good guys with guns" not able to protect themselves from "bad guys with guns"), but she has forced any reasonable NCer to leave and insodoing, restricted the First Amendment rights of NCers and even other OCers.
In fact, one could see the OCer as an example of the violation of prior restraint (this connection brought to you by responsible gun celebrist Walter Sobjchek).
This is only part 1. I'll consider more in another post.
