What's the point of a right that we're not supposed to use?

Armed and Safe ^ | 23 May, 2008 | 45Superman

[marktwain]

Other gun bloggers (War on Guns and Snowflakes in Hell, to name a couple), have covered the outrageous (and criminal) police harassment of open carry activists in Dickson City, PA. The police thuggery eventually led to the arrest of a man who had broken no laws, and the confiscation of his entirely legal firearm.

As I said, this has already been well covered. The reason I am writing about it today is to respond to this editorial piece, "Big difference in right v. smart."

Police detained one of the armed diners and temporarily confiscated his weapon when he declined to answer their questions. So, the point was made. The Second Amendment provides the right to bear arms, and Pennsylvania has no law precluding citizens from openly brandishing the hardware. Moreover, the police were not quite sure about how to respond.

Yet having a right does not mean that it’s always smart to exercise it. Americans have broad free-speech rights, but it’s often smarter to hold one’s tongue for the sake of civil society — broadly, the accommodation of others. The gun-toters don’t seem to understand that not brandishing their weapons in public would not diminish their right while also not intimidating other diners. First, and although I might be flogging a dead horse here, the dead S.O.B. has it comin': the Second Amendment does NOT "provide" the right to bear arms--that is a preexisting, fundamental, human right that does not depend on the Second Amendment (or any other document) for its existence. I'm not just being picky here; if things go our way, and the other side finally finds itself unable to sustain the rhetorical gymnastics required to sustain the bizarre assertion that right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't really . . . the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, their next line of attack will be to "repeal the damn thing" altogether. We need to lay the groundwork for making that repeal an empty gesture, even if and when it succeeds.

Secondly, the writer seems to be asserting that "sure, you have the right to keep and bear arms (whether openly or concealed--it makes no difference), but you oughtn't do it, because it upsets people." Are we to believe that the exercise of a right is . . . wrong, if said exercise makes people uncomfortable? This editor would have been a big help in the desegregation movement in the 60's, eh?

The exercise of rights always upsets people who would deny those rights. I submit that protecting the sensibilities of those who would deny others their rights should be rather low on anyone's list of priorities.

[marktwain]

Excellent observations on the anti-freedom types attempts to delegitimize the exercise of rights.

I view rights as much like muscles. Use them or lose them.

[Beckwith]

sure, you have the right to keep and bear arms (whether openly or concealed--it makes no difference), but you oughtn't do it, because it upsets people."

Does this apply to the 1st Amendment, as well? I get much more upset at what people say, than watching a responsible citizen walk down the street armed.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[tcostell]

That argument (against open carry) is based on the underlying presumption that people have a right to not be offended. Obviously that’s not the case. By the same logic if I were to walk down the street carrying a stick, and someone got it into their head that they were intimidated by it, I could be arrested.

Silly.

[marktwain]

“Does this apply to the 1st Amendment, as well? I get much more upset at what people say, than watching a responsible citizen walk down the street armed.”

---

It certainly does on most college campi, and in Canada and most of Europe. It is what the left is trying to get passed in this country.

Make no mistake, the First Amendment is under attack by the left as well as the Second Amendment.

[Erik Latranyi]

Look, the reaction by grasseaters is acceptable. Seeing someone armed should cause concern. It was the reaction by the police that is unacceptable, and that part of this issue has been thoroughly discussed.

What has not been properly discussed is the fact that this citizen carrying concealed was careless.

Yes, careless.

Not only do we have the right to bear arms, we also have a duty to mix with a sometimes impolite society. We have a duty to conceal our weapons properly.

Careless concealment may offend some. So what.

Careless concealment may leave the carrying citizen a target...a more important error. It would be easy to mass 2-3 men with the intent of overpowering and disarming the citizen who carelessly and unknowingly reveals his concealed weapon.

Likewise, any criminal staking the establishment now knows who to kill with his first shots.

If we are to carry concealed, then we must ensure our concealment is thorough enough.

With rights comes responsibility.

[marktwain]

“What has not been properly discussed is the fact that this citizen carrying concealed was careless.”

---

Unfortunately, you missed a main point of the story. These citizens were not carrying concealed. They were carrying openly.

Open carry has its advantages, just as concealed carry does. They are not exactly the same, but a good case can be made for each. I carry both ways at different times and for different reasons.

One of the reasons for open carry is proudly exercise your rights, and to make people aware of your rights, as these patriots did.

[conservativeharleyguy]

"...The gun-toters don’t seem to understand that not brandishing their weapons in public would not diminish their right while also not intimidating other diners..."

There's a huge difference (both legally and functionally) between "carrying" and "brandishing" a firearm. Sitting in a diner eating your meal, minding your own business with a pistol on your hip is in no means "brandishing".

Pulling it out to intimidate or coerce someone is, and that's expressly prohibited legally. If you have to draw it, you'd better be able to defend your decision by the proving the existence of a deadly or gravely injurious threat to you or a nearby person. You can't just draw it to scare someone.

It sounds to me that the guy was just minding his own business, albeit with a pistol on his belt, and someone got scared by the mere presence of a visible gun and called the police. They should be worried about the ones they don't see.

That's a point the author should make.

[Domandred]

Pennsylvania has no law precluding citizens from openly brandishing the hardware

Open carry is NOT brandishing

[Cicero]

"but you oughtn't do it, because it upsets people."

That's annoying enough, but if you parse it, it's even worse. "Upsetting" people is on the verge of becoming a legalized hate crime. But the unwritten rule is that it only counts if a liberal or a member of a designated victim group claims that he is upset.

If a conservative is upset, for instance by watching or reading about the spectacle of police harrassing someone peacefully carrying a legal weapon, he can go pound sand. If a liberal is upset by someone asserting a constitutional right, then it's a hate crime, and some activist judge is all too likely to convict this upstart.

[marktwain]

“Likewise, any criminal staking the establishment now knows who to kill with his first shots.”

---

A counterpoint to this argument, which is valid in some cases, is that most criminals, if they see an armed customer, are going to go elsewhere.

Open carry provides individual deterrence.

[marktwain]

“That's annoying enough, but if you parse it, it's even worse. “Upsetting” people is on the verge of becoming a legalized hate crime. But the unwritten rule is that it only counts if a liberal or a member of a designated victim group claims that he is upset.

If a conservative is upset, for instance by watching or reading about the spectacle of police harrassing someone peacefully carrying a legal weapon, he can go pound sand. If a liberal is upset by someone asserting a constitutional right, then it's a hate crime, and some activist judge is all too likely to convict this upstart.”

---

I applaud your writing skills and analysis. Well stated.

[Nailbiter]

It sounds to me that the guy was just minding his own business, albeit with a pistol on his belt, and someone got scared by the mere presence of a visible gun and called the police.

that is the I read this also.

Strangely cops have guns on their belts. And are not held to same standard of proving their right(s)as ordinary citizens.

[marktwain]

“Strangely cops have guns on their belts. And are not held to same standard of proving their right(s)as ordinary citizens.”

---

This cannot be repeated strongly enough, or often enough. The people who claim they fear guns, often want to have armed police around. What they really fear is freedom. Their god is the State.

[budwiesest]

Police detained one of the armed diners and temporarily confiscated his weapon when he declined to answer their questions.

"Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon?"
"Not answerin'."

How many pidgeons can you stuff in a suitcase?"
"Don't know, don't care (proceeds to take a bite of meat)."

"If one cop is traveling east at 100 mph and another is traveling west at 100 mph, which one will wreck first?"
"I said, I ain't answerin'"

[marktwain]

I think that you will find this address by Alan Korwin to be informative. It deals a bit with the anti-gun types contradictions.

http://www.gunlaws.com/DuquesneSpeech.htm

[Nailbiter]

State as their God.

Strangely I was thinking along these same lines last night.

In relation to speaking to young people about Obama and his Godlike rise to greatness.

I would point out that most young folk of voting age believe they know more than thir parents.

So what do they do , go vote for Obama becasue he is about change.

In reality they are exchanging their parents telling them what to do, for the state telling them what to do.

A little simplistic but I hope you see my point.

[Beckwith]

Make no mistake, the First Amendment is under attack by the left as well as the Second Amendment.

The entire Constitution is under attack by these Marxists.

[Nailbiter]

ping to link provided by marktwain in post 16

[Cicero]

I wonder if the police remembered to tell him “You have a right to remain silent” before taking him in for remaining silent? Or does that rule only apply to criminals?

[B4Ranch]

>Make no mistake, the First Amendment is under attack by the left as well as the Second Amendment.<

At the moment I am not aure which attack holds priority, the attack on our national sovereignty, the First Amendment or the Second Amendment.

I do suspect that the next administration is going to outshine this one in giving away our rights, freedoms and sovereignty, while the general population worries about the Olympics being held in China or the eventual winner of the Miss America contest.

[B4Ranch]

Question: You decide to go out of your home and open carry. Ok fine, no laws are broken in your state. You also have a CCW permit. Later the weather changes and you put on a jacket concealing the weapon. Have you violated any laws?

[marktwain]

“Question: You decide to go out of your home and open carry. Ok fine, no laws are broken in your state. You also have a CCW permit. Later the weather changes and you put on a jacket concealing the weapon. Have you violated any laws?”

---

Not in Arizona, nor in most States where open carry is a constitutional right, that I know of.

[B4Ranch]

OK, now turn the question around and the weather jumps 30 degrees higher. You go from concealed carry to open carry. I’ll let you remove your jacket inside your vehicle and step out open carrying. Violating any laws?

[marktwain]

“OK, now turn the question around and the weather jumps 30 degrees higher. You go from concealed carry to open carry. I’ll let you remove your jacket inside your vehicle and step out open carrying. Violating any laws?”

---

No, not that I am aware of. Though I am aware that a clever and imaginative prosecutor can find a way to charge almost anyone for almost anything.

The very points that you are mentioning have been debated in the Arizona legislature.

[conservativeharleyguy]

"...Strangely cops have guns on their belts. And are not held to same standard of proving their right(s)as ordinary citizens..."

The major functional difference there is that Police Officers are afforded (or granted) the privilege of carrying their arms as a function of their duties/authorities as our representatives of societal order, rather that having a right to do so. They are only allowed that privilege after successfully completing many qualifications, only one of which is actual marksmanship.

As private citizens, they would still have the same rights that we have, but their open carry in the performance of their duties (or concealed carry in certain cases) are merely extensions of their positions, not their citizenship.

It can easily be revoked upon failure to meet their own set(s) of standards. I have no problem with them being openly armed (having been an LEO myself), as long as they don't abuse their positions or authorities (and understand and respect the rights of law-abiding citizens)

[Nailbiter]

I think you missed my intent, or possibly I was not clear.
I was pointing at the irony of supposedly lawful citizen being questioned by police, on complaint of another citizen, to first citizen openly carrying a gun.

The citizen that complained about the gun, is likely the type that would never own a gun and therefore is afraid of those who do carry guns.
The same citizen that is afraid of guns, is also the type that hates the military.

But they are not afraid of cops that also carry guns.

Quite a generalization I know.

Tis a strange society we live in.

[B4Ranch]

Thanks, now I can show these to a friend who is confused about it.

[glock rocks]

I only open carry out in the woods. I like to keep the advantage on varmints in or out of the city.

[conservativeharleyguy]

"...The same citizen that is afraid of guns, is also the type that hates the military... But they are not afraid of cops that also carry guns",

I agree with the former, and tend to disagree somewhat with the latter. I would posit that they hold the Police in the same, or even lower regard than they do the military.

For most of them, the military is just an abstraction on CNN that operates way outside of their field of view, while the ubiquitous public presence of the Police is a constant reminder of their status as sheep, and of their inability/unwillingness to protect themselves, and is therefore resented, either consciously or subconsciously.

I've seen it a million times. I would walk into some public place in uniform (SRT cammies) and armed, and some people would automatically stiffen up and get nervous. Otherwise normal housewives and regular guys would act as if they were scared of the big bad man with a gun, and act totally different than when I was just hanging out in civvies. Some were people I'd known all my life, in a small town. Pretty odd.

Now remove that thin veneer of legitimate authority, and you get folks who breathlessly panic when they see an armed citizen. They're usually the first to call when they are wronged, and the first to scream harassment when they are confronted.

[supercat]

A counterpoint to this argument, which is valid in some cases, is that most criminals, if they see an armed customer, are going to go elsewhere.

Best, IMHO, is a mix of open and concealed carry. Someone who carries openly may deter criminals without having to draw, much less fire, his weapon. Someone who carries concealed has no such direct deterrent effect. On the other hand, the general presence of people who carry concealed provides some deterrence in cases where no visibly-armed people are present. The effect probably isn't as strong as the deterrent posed by a visibly-armed person, but it's better than nothing.

[marktwain]

“Best, IMHO, is a mix of open and concealed carry. Someone who carries openly may deter criminals without having to draw, much less fire, his weapon. Someone who carries concealed has no such direct deterrent effect. On the other hand, the general presence of people who carry concealed provides some deterrence in cases where no visibly-armed people are present. The effect probably isn't as strong as the deterrent posed by a visibly-armed person, but it's better than nothing.”

---

John Lott has shown a significant deterrent effect from concealed carry, but I agree that the effect would be even stronger if there were a significant open carry presence. It does not yet exist in most states.

I and other right thinking people are working to strengthen the open carry deterrent effect.

[Nailbiter]

Now remove that thin veneer of legitimate authority, and you get folks who breathlessly panic when they see an armed citizen.

The thin veil of civilization.

How little do the sheeple understand what they are throwing away.

Only after losing what they do not understand nor value, will this country be able to get back track. If we can!!!!

I believe you and I see same problem, just different perspective.

It is thankless job to be LEO/military in this time, thanks to those that respect the citizens that they are to protect. Thank you also

i will go off topic for a bit.

In another post , I posited that those supporting Obamama or Hillary were trading one set off parents(who do not know anything) for promise of govt( another set of parents) that knows what is best.

It is the same with folks that we are speaking about.
The want someone/anyone to protect them from evil, but are unwilling to accept the cost of protection.

It is late, and I have been up too long, perhaps I will sleep on this discourse and reply later.
I thank you for your thoughts and comments. Be safe this holiday weekend, let us give thanks for those who have given their lives for this great country.

[ctdonath2]

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, carrying arms concealed was considered presumptive evidence the owner had criminal intent. The reversal of the notion is actually rather recent.

[Erik Latranyi]

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, carrying arms concealed was considered presumptive evidence the owner had criminal intent. The reversal of the notion is actually rather recent.

So what?

We live in today's world....like it or not.

If you carry concealed, you have a responsibility to keep your weapon concealed.