Constitutional Open Carry - Think about it!

[ImminentDanger]

Open Carry is Exercising Two Rights At Once!

The 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech

The Right of Free Speech is based not on everyone exhibiting agreed upon speech or actions but on the tolerance and legality of perceived offensive speech or actions. No Right of Free Speech would need to be asserted in the face of acceptable speech.

It is only when there is offense taken, and that offense is used to justify censoring such speech or action, that one needs to assert one's Right to Free Speech (and action). Such is the case with flag burning, Nazi marches, most any public protest marches, etc. If no one was offended by the speech or actions, it would be uncontested, and no one would need to assert their 1st Amendment Rights.


The 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is based not on a necessity for hunting tools to provide food for the family but upon the right and responsibility of every U.S. citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their family and their country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The writings of the founding fathers amply make this point and was recently highlighted by the Supreme Court ruling in the Heller case.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms recognizes the foibles and weaknesses of all mankind and the ongoing need for protection from bodily crimes, both personal and national. It asserts an individual right and responsibility to defend against being molested or assaulted. The written amendment neither assumes nor acknowledges that this right and responsibility should or can be usurped by any governmental agency. In fact, within the writings of the founding fathers it can be seen that they specifically included the government as a potential enemy of the people for which the 2nd Amendment provides a means of defense.

The 2nd Amendment does not enumerate what arms are protected but it certainly included all typical arms owned by the citizenry. Furthermore, the methods of exercising this right are neither expressly detailed in the amendment nor are there proscriptions on any such methods. However, it clearly asserts that this right 'shall not be infringed.'


Constitutional Open Carry

Exercising one's Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be done in many ways. Keeping a weapon in one's residence, keeping a firearm in one's vehicle or carrying a firearm on one's person. All of these actions are protected in the 'shall not be infringed' guarantee.

Likewise, carrying a firearm upon one's person can also be done in a number of ways. Hip carry, small of the back carry, ankle carry, shoulder carry, etc. All of these options are provided for by the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Carrying one's firearm within a visible holster is just as valid a choice. Police patrol officers typically carry in this fashion. This is just as valid a choice for citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Unlike concealed carry, there is another element to openly carrying one's firearm. It is the exercise of one's 1st Amendment right to proclaim one's recognition and support of the 2nd Amendment. Within this one safe and legitimate act, one is exercising both the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Just as in other 1st Amendment issues, the exercise of one's Open Carry rights does generate offense in some people. That this act is offensive to some in no way mitigates the rights conferred by the 1st Amendment to express one's opinions. This expression is both safe and legitimate as the inanimate object will not release itself from it's confines to do any damage. So why are some people offended?

Those Offended at Seeing Open Carry

Wikipedia includes an explanation of Hoplophobia as "from the Greek hoplon, meaning armor, is defined as the 'fear of firearms' and as the 'fear of armed citizens'. While these fears may account for some of those offended, I believe there are many others who have a deeper problem.

Much of the public is not 'scared' by a visibly displayed firearms. The fact is that the majority of average police officers Openly Carry their firearm while on duty. And, contrary to true Hoplophobia, most people don't flee in terror every time they see the officer's firearm openly displayed. For most, it is not about being scared of the firearm.

There may be some who truly 'fear armed citizens' as in expecting them to act dangerously and create mayhem. These would fall under the above definition of Hoplophobia. But there are many more who are offended at Open Carry for another reason.

Much of the public (along with the media and government) has created a myth that the police are required to and are capable of protecting them. The typical advice from the media and government regarding dealing with any threat is to call 911 and wait for the police to arrive. While in many cases this might be sufficient, it certainly does not prevent personal attacks and bodily harm. The typical police response is 'after the fact' and the damage is already done. In responding to this fact, the average citizen carrying a firearm (concealed or openly) for self-protection asserts that police protection is truly a myth.


Openly Carrying a firearm publicly denies the myth that the police are required and capable of protecting the citizenry. It publicly declares that this person believes in the 2nd Amendment Principle that every citizen has the right & responsibility for self-protection.

It is this TRUTH that scares the public!

So why are they (begrudgingly) accepting of Concealed Carry but take offense at Open Carry? With Concealed Carry, they can simply act as if no one is carrying a firearm - it allows them to maintain the myth in their heads. No matter what the facts are (that people they see and pass every day are carrying a concealed firearm), the idea that out-of-sight is out-of-mind clearly applies. They 'feel better' by not having to see the openly carried firearm and be reminded that, as the saying goes, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

Ordinary citizens Openly Carrying their firearms is an affront to that myth and the reality it forces upon the offended public's mentality is frightful. This revelation (that self-protection is necessary) is so frightful that it even emboldens them to confront those who Open Carry and demand that they hide their firearm. Surely, no one who is a true Hoplophobe would willingly approach someone with a firearm (who they fear). No, it is not fear of the firearm or the carrier that drives these offended crusaders.

It is fear that their myth is invalid that drives these offended people to adamantly demand that other citizens not exercise their rights. The peaceful myth (of police protection) cannot be maintained in the face of others claiming that life holds too many potential dangers to go unarmed. The offended people demand respect and support of their self-soothing myths -- and demand that the rights of others MUST be surrendered.

Think about it!

ID

[andrewjs18]

excellent post. well done sir!

[Gun]

For those who openly state offense, at the sight of an OC'ing individual,

they probably find offense at everything they look at, that goes against

what they perceive is normal.

[bigandy1966]

Bump for the read

[ViperGTS19801]

Bamp! Read it, guys.

[MischaBurns]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ImminentDanger again.

I'll have to get you later.

[libra8]

Excellent read.

[15Truckman]

Fantastic post! +rep

[libra8]

Only 8 replies.

[The_War_Wagon]

For those who openly state offense, at the sight of an OC'ing individual,

they probably find offense at everything they look at, that goes against

what they perceive is LIBERAL.

Fixed it for ya'.