Open Carry Flaw?

[headcase]

You must be joking. You seriously have no problem with a felon walking around with a gun?

Regarding your second point, we limit the exercise of rights on a daily basis for the public good, and for good reason. The best example is the limitation imposed on the 1st Amendment.

Not a flame, but this type of thinking is exactly why this country is filled with cattle instead of individuals. The reality of life in this country today, compared to the way it was intended to be, makes me ill. We have the rights the government allows us to have, when they feel like allowing us to have them, and most people are ok with that.....To policemedic, no he was not kidding. A felon having a gun should mean nothing. A felon using a gun to commit a crime, is a criminal act, that, if every law abiding citizen had a gun, would happen about once. There is no good reason to limit a right, unless you are a government employee, who believes that the government knows what is best for the people. There can be no limit on a right, or it is not a right. If you think there should be limits on rights, then you don't believe in having rights. It is as simple as that.

[GunLawyer001]

I agree with much of what has been said, I think that making the job of the police easier doesn't justify creating a police state. When every street corner and every workplace and every supermarket is a police checkpoint, with metal detectors making sure that we are unarmed for officer safety, then it's time to throw in the towel, because whatever made America great will be gone.

There's also the law of unintended consequences. Not that book, the principle, the one where human beings react to whatever the govt or the citizens just did to fix some problem.

We had lots of cars stolen, so car makers installed a variety of anti-theft measures to make cars harder to steal; the thugs switched from late-night car break-ins to daylight armed carjackings, because the owners had the keys and that enabled the thugs to steal the cars. Did anyone intend to replace bloodless property crimes with armed robberies where people died? Don't think so. But the felons responded to the change.

Felons were buying guns from dealers, so the govt "fixed" it by instituting the Brady check. Felons responded by hiring others to make the purchases, and now we have a "straw purchase" problem, which the govt wants to "fix" by imposing "1 gun a month" limits on every person's right to acquire firearms. Does anyone really think that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Me neither. In fact, even the proponents are careful to say that it will "make it harder for criminals to acquire guns", not that it will "stop criminals from acquiring guns". How bad a deal is that, all of us surrender an essential liberty without the bastards even pretending that it will give us more security?

So someone proposes that anyone with a gun gives up his 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, to fix a "flaw" where police can't tell the felons from the good guys. The felons make sure to hide their guns (which they do now, anyway) and the rest of us limp along with the Bill of Rights reduced by 10%. Sorry pal, no deal. How about this instead, once they catch the violent thugs and convict them, why don't they keep them in some special building where they can't bother the rest of us anymore? That would have saved the life of that Philly cop, since every one of the 3 perps could have been sentenced until long into the future.

[policemedic]

Not a flame, but this type of thinking is exactly why this country is filled with cattle instead of individuals. The reality of life in this country today, compared to the way it was intended to be, makes me ill. We have the rights the government allows us to have, when they feel like allowing us to have them, and most people are ok with that.....To policemedic, no he was not kidding. A felon having a gun should mean nothing. A felon using a gun to commit a crime, is a criminal act, that, if every law abiding citizen had a gun, would happen about once. There is no good reason to limit a right, unless you are a government employee, who believes that the government knows what is best for the people. There can be no limit on a right, or it is not a right. If you think there should be limits on rights, then you don't believe in having rights. It is as simple as that.

It's not simple; it's quite complex in fact.

I do not oppose the right of law abiding folks to own, carry, and use firearms for their protection (and that includes NFA items). In fact, I encourage it at every opportunity. I've given more people advice on why they should have a LTCF, and how to go about getting one (to include signing as a reference) then any cop I know (with the likely exception of Steve in PA). Hell, I usually tell people they need a bigger gun....

I have a problem, however, with the proposition that a felon, someone who has by definition demonstrated their unwillingness to be law abiding, should continue to be able to possess a firearm. What, pray tell, is this felon likely to do with this firearm?

In my experience, that felon is going to use it to commit another crime. Granted, that crime is likely to be the aggravated assault by shooting of another felon, or a homicide by shooting of another felon, but the fact remains that felons are dangerous individuals with a predilection for preying on society.

Does that mean that I am going to stop someone who is OC'ing because they might be a felon, and might have received the gun through a straw purchase, or they might have stolen the gun and removed the serial number? NO. I accept that possibility, but judge it as being very unlikely for the same reasons others have already stated.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain kinds of speech in certain places at certain times are not protected forms of expression. Do you disagree that yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater should be prohibited? Yes, it's a well-worn example, but the point stands (and I decided not to use extremely offensive examples).

[policemedic]

How about this instead, once they catch the violent thugs and convict them, why don't they keep them in some special building where they can't bother the rest of us anymore? That would have saved the life of that Philly cop, since every one of the 3 perps could have been sentenced until long into the future.

I agree completely. As I understand it, there has recently been legislation introduced prohibiting parole for violent criminals. That's a step in the right direction.

[truecrimson]

A person with a suspended drivers license might drive a stolen car. Should everyone who is not violating a law be pulled over for a random check to make sure they have a valid drivers license and own the car?

[GunLawyer001]

....

I have a problem, however, with the proposition that a felon, someone who has by definition demonstrated their unwillingness to be law abiding, should continue to be able to possess a firearm. What, pray tell, is this felon likely to do with this firearm?

In my experience, that felon is going to use it to commit another crime. Granted, that crime is likely to be the aggravated assault by shooting of another felon, or a homicide by shooting of another felon, but the fact remains that felons are dangerous individuals with a predilection for preying on society.
.....

What you're facing is the problem caused by releasing dangerous people back onto the streets after they've proven that they are dangerous. To my mind, a rapist should stay in jail until he can show, at least by a preponderance of the evidence if not beyond a reasonable doubt, that he will never rape again. Same for carjackers, home invaders, drug dealers, and the other criminals who make life in the cities a living hell. Catch & release doesn't work.

Once someone is found to be no threat and is released, he has the same right to protect himself that nature gives all living creatures, and he should have access to guns and Kevlar and whatever he feels he needs. We abandoned "outlawry" centuries ago, where someone who broke the law could be declared an outlaw and forfeited the protection of the law; he could be killed by any person without consequence.

So, keep the convicted predators in jail, then we won't have to worry about dangerous felons with guns. It's no safer for them to be driving in the passing lane or standing behind your wife at the Acme or looking at your kids at recess, if we can't trust them with a gun then we can't trust them to walk among us.

[WhiteFeather]

What is forgotten in history is when criminals fully paid their debt to society they got all of their rights back, fully restored, including their rights to own firearms again.

[Carnes]

What you're facing is the problem caused by releasing dangerous people back onto the streets after they've proven that they are dangerous. To my mind, a rapist should stay in jail until he can show, at least by a preponderance of the evidence if not beyond a reasonable doubt, that he will never rape again. Same for carjackers, home invaders, drug dealers, and the other criminals who make life in the cities a living hell. Catch & release doesn't work.

Once someone is found to be no threat and is released, he has the same right to protect himself that nature gives all living creatures, and he should have access to guns and Kevlar and whatever he feels he needs. We abandoned "outlawry" centuries ago, where someone who broke the law could be declared an outlaw and forfeited the protection of the law; he could be killed by any person without consequence.

So, keep the convicted predators in jail, then we won't have to worry about dangerous felons with guns. It's no safer for them to be driving in the passing lane or standing behind your wife at the Acme or looking at your kids at recess, if we can't trust them with a gun then we can't trust them to walk among us.

I totally agree, except that I would take it a step further, and seek to make execution a much more readily available punishment.

Back to the OP...

A sexual deviant is free to walk around with a lollipop and a condom tacked to his/her shirt. Creepy, but freedom is freedom.

People who cannot be trusted to be out and about with a lollipop should not be allowed to be out and about, period. The same applies to firearms.

[RandomTask]

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain kinds of speech in certain places at certain times are not protected forms of expression. Do you disagree that yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater should be prohibited? Yes, it's a well-worn example, but the point stands (and I decided not to use extremely offensive examples).

The infringement of the first amendment doesn't make the infringement of the 2nd amendment right. Two wrongs never make a right.
But, I guess you're also OK with the erosion of our 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th amendment protections since the enactment of the Patriot Act.

[The Drew]

There is a flaw with ALL gun control laws...

We're looking at things backwards. Since unless something is illgeal, it is legal which is the case with open carry. There isn't a law that allows people to open carry, there is an absence of a law that forbids it, so therefore there isn't a law that allows criminals to carry.

Now to the real flaw with gun control laws... What makes you think that a criminal that is willing to commit multiple felonies in the process of perpetrating whatever crime their committing is going to be stopped by some other law that says he cannot carry or own a weapon? The definition of a criminal is someone who does NOT follow the law. It isn't about being comfortable with "criminals" carrying weapons, they will anyway. This is the flaw with ALL anti gun people who say they're just trying to get the guns out of the hands of criminals.