Posted on 06/02/2014 8:27:47 AM PDT by windcliff
The last couple of months have been rough for proponents of open-carry gun laws. No fewer than seven restaurant chains have taken a stand against firearms being brought to their businesses, after activists in Texas conducted provocative demonstrations in which they toted semi-automatic rifles into various eateries. Texas law allows rifles (though not handguns) to be carried on display in public, but some patrons and employees were unnerved and angered by the demonstrations, and a national group advocating for reforms, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, pressured the companies using social media campaigns. After Mother Jones published videos of the gun activists in action, Sonic and Chili's Grill & Bar became the latest to officially reject guns on their premises.
There has also been a particularly dark side to the story of the gun activists: As I first reported in mid May, members of Open Carry Texas and their allies have used vicious tactics against people who disagree with them, including bullying and degrading women. Just last week they harassed a Marine veteran, pursuing him through the streets of Fort Worth on Memorial Day.
In an extraordinary statement, the NRA denounced the open-carry demonstrations as "foolishness" and "downright weird."
Evidently the National Rifle Association has come to realize that none of this is good for business. In an extraordinary move on Friday, the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action—the organization's powerful lobbying arm in Washington—issued a lengthy statement seeking to distinguish between "responsible behavior" and "legal mandates." It told the Texas gun activists in no uncertain terms to stand down.
(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...
I caught that from the article, so I understand what’s going on here. I just think you loose more support than you gain by walking in like this.
Most folks don’t focus on gun rights all the time. They may favor them, but they don’t key in on it like some of us do. Those folks aren’t going to be impressed by this sort of thing, even though they probably share a lot of our views down deep.
I just think it’s a mistake.
I appreciate the note of mention, re the handguns being worn openly.
I agree. I wrote a posting earlier in this thread, lamenting that this "activism" is undoing a great deal of effort expended right after the CHL law was enacted in the 90's.
The beef I have with the NRA (and why I let my membership lapse) is the fact that they will support DemoRATs so long as they are “right” on guns. I’d be a lot happier with the NRA if they were pro Constitution!
A very worthy beef IMHO.
Supporting democrats regardless of their position on guns is a lose lose in everyway one could possibly think of. When the NRA ever comes to it’s senses, maybe I will consider membership. How one justifies, middle of the road sitting on the fence politics in today’s world is a question the NRA seems to avoid.
Thanks JustLurking. We’re on the same page. I appreciate the comments.
You know, I’ve been out on the street with people I agree with politically. We believe in the same things, even the same cause we were protesting about. Sadly, some of them make such fools of themselves on the street, that they tarnish the whole cause and Conservatives in general with their insulting and ill thought out actions.
I think this is an example of that sort of problem.
Yep, like those Negroes that had the audacity to sit at the lunch counter or the gays with their PDA's and parades.
Speaker of the Massachusetts House Robert DeLeo has before the Legislature a new, even more awful, gun-confiscation bill that begins with mandatory registration of ALL firearms in the state, including the musket your great-great-grandfather used during the Civil War. Is there another state with mandatory gun registration?
LOL!
While I am not a big fan of the NRA (they have compromised too many times), I believe they are correct in principle on this matter.
Two concepts that need to evaluated: what is legal and what is wise.
Let me start with an example. I live in the country where there is a beautiful winding road which is fairly flat, but that has some very steep edges to it, and is only wide enough for two cars with no shoulders on any part of the road for many many miles. Cars tend to go between 35 and 55mph on this road, around turns, etc. Because this road is very beautiful, I have noticed over the last six years or so more bicycles on this road, and in the last couple of years, people running on this road. This is very dangerous. With no where to go for either car or person I expect to hear of accidents. I have gone around the turns only to be encountered in my lane by bicycles or runners; and have had to brake hard to avoid hitting them. I will not move out into the other lane, because I can’t see if there are any cars coming in the other direction.
My point: while legal for the bicycles and runners, it is not wise; but very dangerous.
While legal for individuals to open carry it probably is not wise to open carry rifles. But instead it is an in your face attitude that doesn’t need to occur; and it seem to be openly rebellious (kind of like an 8-year old that has discovered a new found liberty and doesn’t know how to properly and responsibly exercise his new liberty.) Open carry with handguns in normal holsters would still make the point, exercising our 2nd amendment, but not be so brazen and in your face.
When Bill Walsh was coach of the 49ers and some of the team would do the victory dance in the endzone, he said something that has stuck with me (paraphrased by me): Stop the victory dance, when you get into the endzone, act like you have been there before.
Andrew Branca did a piece on this topic a couple weeks ago in Legal Insurrection.com. More than the usual number of comments on the story.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/05/op-ed-open-carry-activists-score-yet-another-own-goal//#more
“Another rationale offered by the “OCIYF!” crew is that they are merely strengthening their Second Amendment rights through the exercise of those rights. Indeed, they’ll be happy to imply that it’s not they who are the problem, but rather that the problem lies with those of us who don’t engage in “OCIYF!” who “hide” our Second Amendment rights—after all, if we don’t use our gun rights, we’ll lose our gun rights.
Here’s some breaking news for you “OCIYF!” people:
YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CARRY A FIREARM INTO A PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS.
None. Zero. Zilch. Zip.”
Neither of which can be considered to be behavior that would make a reasonable person concerned that an act of violence was about to occur. Something that CANNOT be said about walking into a place while holding an AR-15, given recent history of mass murder incidents.
I don't know about you, but if I'm sitting at a diner and somebody walks in holding an AR-15 (not just slung over the shoulder, or better-yet in a bag, but HOLDING), I'm going to react the same way as if somebody walked in holding a handgun in his hand, namely assume that a robbery or massacre is imminent.
One of these days, one of these open-carry idiots is going to walk into a place holding a rifle, somebody is going to become alarmed enough to draw and blow the guy away, and if I'm on the jury I WILL NOT VOTE TO CONVICT, on the basis of reasonable self-defense.
Gunowners, is the NRA your friend? They should be pointing out that the problem is that everyone of these shooters has been or is on mind-warping "meds", prescribed to alter their behaviors. Aren't you paying dues for them to deflect from blaming the guns?
Yes, I know that. I still don’t want folks walking into business establishments with AK-47s and AR-15s. I think you lose a lot of folks who would otherwise support your cause.
Showing up at a restaurant brandishing weapons is not a good way to support open carry.
Funny. We have open carry in Oklahoma and we got it without acting like a bunch of irresponsible adolescents. Maybe that's *why* we got it here.
So what is an acceptable carry method for a rifle or shotgun carried for personal protection? Because the states involved have made openly carrying a sidearm impracticable. This is a legal form of protest, the gun banners will act by outlawing it, and then we can take them to court with a bona-fide cause for action which isn’t already blocked by illegitimate and ignorant precedent.
If you are talking about Chubby and Snowboots at Chipotle, they didn’t “show up there” to “brandish” their weapons.
They did pose for a photo op that the anti-gun types are using for good effect.
Especially effective on “fair weather Patriots” more than willing to concede the fight to the Left when they start saying mean things about us...
But then, if we wind up with a country where everything is privately owned, will we have no Second Amendment rights at all? Or any other rights?
YUp. Exactly the same thing.
If you cannot exercise a right, you don't actually have it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.