Op-Ed: “Open Carry” Activists Score Yet Another Own Goal
The armed demonstrations of “Open Carry” activists sets back gun rights movement.
I’ve owned and shot firearms since my age could be measured in single digits. I’ve actively engaged in firearms competition since I was in my teens. I’ve carried a lawfully concealed firearm on my person pretty much every day of my adult life.
I’ve been an NRA instructor since my 20s, and have personally taught a great many people—many of them women overcoming the horror of sexual assault—how to handle firearms safely and, if necessary, to effectively stop a deadly attack upon themselves or their family.
I’ve been an NRA Life Member for something like a couple of decades, and consider myself a Second Amendment absolutist. Not only do I think universal background checks would be a bad policy to adopt, I think all current background check systems are a laughable and useless infringement on the rights of the law abiding that have zero impact on denying access to guns by prohibited persons, and should be banned forthwith.
I think that anything other than Constitutional Carry, in every state, as well as the District of Columbia and every territory that answers to American sovereignty, is an inexcusable affront to the very fiber of the United States Constitution.
I also think that anybody engaged in the practice of “Open Carry in YOUR FACE!!!” (henceforth “OCIYF!”) is behaving like a jackass.
Actually, I think they’re worse than that, but I’m trying to keep this a family-friendly post.
What, you might ask, is “OCIYF!”? It’s an activity, usually orchestrated among multiple participants, to openly carry firearms for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention to themselves, usually by means of frightening a populace unfamiliar with the sight or practice of open carry. They typically to do this to increasing degrees until they compel action against their “OCIYF!” activities, at which point they express outrageously outraged outrage.
To augment the fear and reaction they induce, for example, they do not limit their open carry to a handgun in a secure holster—a sight every citizen is familiar with in their day-to-day lives, if only as worn by police officers. Oh, no, that won’t attract them the degree of attention they so desperately and petulantly seek.
Instead of taking a low-key, holstered-pistols-only approach that would serve more than adequately to assert their “right” to open carry, they instead escalate to the open carry of long guns that look to the low-information citizen precisely like the weapons with which we arm our soldiers to slay our Nation’s enemies, and that are precisely the weapons the gun control lobby fights most vigorously to turn public sentiment against. Good job, geniuses.
Ask the “OCIYF!” crowd what their goal is and they’ll tell you it’s to “normalize” public attitudes toward the open carry of long guns in the casual course of running day-to-day errands.
How utterly stupid. It has never been normal in any part of American history (outside of lawless frontier territories) for the citizenry to arm themselves with state-of-the-art long guns while simply running errands around town, much less while engaged in the momentary luxury of purchasing a cup of coffee or a mid-day meal.
The “OCIYF!” crowd, then, is not truly trying to return to a more enlightened gun-rights age of American history where the carry of long guns was unremarkable, for no such time ever existed. Rather they are attempting to bring on their fantasy vision of an American culture they’d like to see emerge. Ironically, a fantasy vision they make increasingly unlikely with every demonstration that frightens the populace whose electoral will ultimately determine whether the Second Amendment has teeth and is respected or instead becomes a kissing cousin of the Tenth.
Further, it’s not merely the “sheep” among American citizens that take alarm at the sight of one or several people swaggering into my local Starbucks or Chipotle, ARs dangling awkwardly from single-point “operator” lanyards, muzzles dancing recklessly at a floor covered in people’s feet and young children.
I’ve described my gun rights “cred.” If I’m in that Starbucks, and such an “OCIYF!” crowd strolls in, they’ve brightened themselves considerably on my personal “threat radar.” As is my practice any time such brightening occurs, my first move after having identified the threat is to assess imminence, followed by immediately vacating the area.
That, gentlemen, is the degree of alarm experienced, and evasion performed, by someone with a life around guns, more than a few rounds down the barrel of an AR, an effective personal defensive weapon on my hip, and many years of training and practice in its use.
What do you imagine goes through the mind of a young mother there with her small daughter, the office clerk from the nearby bank, the elderly couple sitting in the corner? None of these perfectly normal people are likely to have either the physical or mental capability of engaging such a perceived threat should it become realized. It wouldn’t surprise me at all that they were wondering if today was the day they were going to die.
Wining hearts and minds, eh?
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.
The Second Amendment forbids the Federal government—and since McDonald also the individual state governments—from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Key word: government.
The Second Amendment does nothing whatever to constrain the rights of private property owners to determine for themselves whether to allow the carry of guns—concealed or open—on their property.
To put it even more simply, when you are on someone else’s property you are there as an invited guest. You stay at their pleasure, and under their rules, rules that only they are entitled to define. Make your host unhappy for any reason whatever and they are entirely within their rights to order you to leave. Refuse to comply and you’ve become a criminal guilty of trespass.
So anytime you hear the words “Second Amendment” or “gun rights” emerge as a rationale from an “OCIYF!” crew that has herded into a totally inoffensive Starbucks or Chipotle, you can be certain from the start that they have utterly no idea what they’re talking about.
Furthermore, having companies such as Starbucks and Chipotle make national headquarters-level pronouncements that the carrying of guns is no longer welcome on their properties is a wholly predictable outcome of “OCIYF!” activity.
Both Starbucks and Chipotle were initially entirely neutral on the “guns on our property,” issue, stating simply that their stores abided by the local laws where they were located. Really, they didn’t care, or they didn’t care enough to make any formal decisions about the matter. Abide by the law, live-and-let-live, and all was good.
I’ve personally been in scores of Starbucks and Chipotles while lawfully armed, and never had the slightest complaint from management, staff, or customers.
Why did I encounter so little resistance, and the “OCIYF!” crew so much? Because I didn’t constitute a substantive threat to the one thing both those businesses, indeed any business, does care a great deal about: their business. And, by extension, the willingness of their customers to come, buy, and come back again.
Forced to choose between the half-dozen “OCIYF!” gang banging their AR’s off the furniture every other Saturday on the one hand and the many thousands of regular non-threatening customers on the other, only a fool would believe they’d make any choice but the latter.
Incidentally, much the same applies to being out in public—think of it as the public’s “private property.” It’s certainly true that there are some places in the country where open carry in public might go unremarked. In such areas, the “host” is not averse to open carry, by definition.
Conversely, there are others where even though open carry is legal a group of non-uniformed men traipsing around in public with ARs is likely to result in a police response. It is precisely these types of areas that the “OCIYF!” group targets for their demonstrations, deliberately to encourage such a response. Just as the case when they crowd their armed selves into a Starbucks or Chipotle, they have the same misguided and childish goals when they do so in a public forum they know to be deeply troubled by such armed demonstrations.
I don’t expect there’s much chance of rationally changing the minds of the “OCIYF!” crowd. A person who hasn’t learned commonsense good manners and self-interest by the time they’re old enough to purchase firearms isn’t likely to do so thereafter.
I’m instead talking to all the other gun owners out there who, like me, have fought for more than a generation to turn back the tide from the dark days of the 1990s, to bring gun ownership and armed self-defense out of the shadows and back into the light of respectability, to bring lawful concealed carry from a handful of states to nearly the entire country, to make the use of firearms an easily defensible recreational activity for the entire family.
In other words, I’m talking to all of you non-“OCIYF!” folks who have spent much of your lives successfully normalizing guns again in American life.
If you’ve watched the news stories about Starbucks and Chipotle making corporate-level decisions to ban lawfully carried guns from their businesses, and had the vague sense that there was someone peeing in the pool—well, you were right.
Someone is. And they’re called “OCIYF!”
–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog, Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle), Barnes & Noble (paperback and Nook), and elsewhere.












Comments
Andrew hasn’t posted the photo floating around on different blogs of the two douche’s in Chipotle’s, one with his AR 15 or SKS(sorry, I don’t know them exactly on sight)hanging from a lanyard around his neck, and the other with his pointing up, but with his finger on the trigger. Next to the condiment stand. Both look like 100% jerks, especially the 300 pounder in a giant t-shirt, shorts and untied athletic shoes.
From reading other blogs addressing this story, the pres. of this nutgroup has been arrested numerous times, of his own purposeful device.
He has engaged one of the blog contributors to Victorygirls, calling her a liar and getting very personal about it, after she posted the photos and the story.Makes for some interesting reading, the guy is a nutjob.
The best thing we can all do is denounce these idiots loud and clear and keep at it.
I saw that photo at TAH — here it is for those who missed out on the pleasure –> http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=48192
This is SO not the picture I want to come to peoples’ minds when I try to get through to them that most people who carry are just ordinary everyday citizens like you and me. These guys look like every Leftist’s caricature of the “typical” American gun owner, it’s ridiculous. Even I want to make fun of them.
(I’m thinking maybe I should have posted “TRIGGER WARNING” (no pun intended) on that link, for those who haven’t had lunch yet..)
Perhaps Mr. Slob will render himself moot one of these days by walking into the wrong place at the wrong time, man-handling a black rifle at about count 2 port, arms.
Here is more on C.J. Grisham and his douchebaggery:
Storm Warning: The Trial and Conviction of CJ Grisham
The ladies at Victory Girls Blog wrote a great piece about exactly this issue yesterday. They have a bit more perspective/information regarding the founder of OCT. http://victorygirlsblog.com/how-open-carry-texas-forced-chipotle-to-ban-guns/
To be clear to the “ladies”, guns are not banned at chipotle. Customers were asked not to bring guns and during a press release, the spokesperson would not comment on whether guns were banned at chipotle.
Trying to equate OC activism with the “success” of the LGBT lobby is worthless for this discussion. The LGBT lobby has failed to sway very many common citizens. Whenever a state constitutional amendment or proposition, limiting or banning homosexual marriage, comes up on ballots, it is overwhelmingly passed. It is only liberal media, judges and legislators who succumb to the LGBT lobby.
What people do not understand about OC is that it is practiced very little, and almost never in developed areas. Even in states where OC is legal, it is seen about as much as Bigfoot. It is simply not socially acceptable, in most developed areas, and hasn’t been since the beginning of the 20th century.
Now, as the SCOTUS has not seen fit to rule that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, that no government may regulate the ownership and possession of weapons and firearms, this means that governments, in response to this type of activism, are free to place “reasonable restrictions” upon the ownership and possession of firearms. One must always beware of the law of unintended consequences.
I agree that LGBT activism is a leftist tactic that should be avoided by gun enthusiasts.
However, I do like the irony of the parallel.
On one side, the left’s insistence that you MUST comply with and support gay being shoved in your face and your family’s face.
On the opposite side, the OC activists insistence that you MUST comply with my gang-style shows of force being shoved in your face and your family’s face.
But two wrongs definitely don’t make a right in this case.
It would have been perfectly reasonable for Chipotle to respond to the discomfort of some customers over open carry to ban OPEN CARRY in their restaurants, but that’s not what they did. They said they didn’t want concealed weapons either, turning their establishments into another publicly broadcast “defender free zone,” which is an invitation to strong arm robbery and mass murder. I do my best to avoid such zones, as much for ideological reasons for practical I admit, since my whole stupid state of California is pretty much a defender free zone. So while I am not “boycotting” Chipotle, I did send them an email that I now consider their restaurants to be unsafe, publicly announced “defender free zones” and will no longer be eating there (I did previously eat there with some regularity, despite the trash-can corrugated galvanized sheet-metal decor) until this overbroad anti-gun policy is amended to allow concealed carry.
Unless they put up signs, it’s just store policy and has no bearing whatsoever on legal concealed carry.
If they DO put up signs, it still has no bearing on legal concealed carry unless they’re in a jurisdiction where such signs actually hold force of law.
A no-concealed-guns policy has a BIG effect on concealed carry because people who carry concealed generally respect store policies. A person might carry against policy if competing providers are not available but there are always plenty of other places a person can eat.
Yes, but that has the built in consequence of taking business away from the place that bans concealed carry, so I am fine with that.
Good point.
Here is a link to an excellent way to be smart about open carry: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2014/05/on-the-open-carry-of-arms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Blackfive+%28BLACKFIVE%29
Yes, that’s what reasonable conduct looks like.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Manners always matter, especially when trying to win people over to your point of view. They are a show of respect to those whom you wish to impress and prove that you appreciate being given their time and attention. People behaving the way Mr. Branca described demonstrate to me that they don’t really care what the public thinks of them and are simply doing it for their personal attention.
Mr. Branca,
I agree, pretty much. But…
(Andrew Branca): “What do you imagine goes through the mind of a young mother there with her small daughter, the office clerk from the nearby bank, the elderly couple sitting in the corner?”
A shrug, maybe, if people routinely carry long arms. Consider the three guys in plaid with their rifles against the wall, eating breakfast at 0500 in a rural café on the opening day of deer season.
(Andrew): “Instead of taking a low-key, holstered-pistols-only approach that would serve more than adequately to assert their ‘right’ to open carry, they instead escalate to the open carry of long guns that look to the low-information citizen precisely like the weapons with which we arm our soldiers to slay our Nation’s enemies, and that are precisely the weapons the gun control lobby fights most vigorously to turn public sentiment against.”
Three problems here: (1) long arms cannot be carried concealed, (2) some jurisdictions place more restrictions on handguns and concealed weapons than on long arms, so that fewer people have the right to carry concealed, and (3) the Second Amendment isn’t in the Constitution primarily so that Americans can hunt deer or protect their homes against burglars. As Eugene Volokh writes, it’s a tripwire. The American revolution began with colonial resistance against an attempt by their own government to disarm the colonists. We are supposed to be at least as well armed as the US Army.
“Consider the three guys in plaid with their rifles against the wall, eating breakfast at 0500 in a rural café on the opening day of deer season.”
Yes, why don’t we consider context.
What was the context for these OCIYF jerks carrying ARs into a Chipotle? Was it because they were preparing to go hunt, in a hunting region? Was it “deer season” in the vicinity of that Chipotle? No, it was not, and hunting was not their purpose. Their purpose was attention whoring, and I simply consider that irresponsible in the context of being armed.
“Three problems here: (1) long arms cannot be carried concealed, (2) some jurisdictions place more restrictions on handguns and concealed weapons than on long arms, so that fewer people have the right to carry concealed, and (3) the Second Amendment isn’t in the Constitution primarily so that Americans can hunt deer or protect their homes against burglars. As Eugene Volokh writes, it’s a tripwire. The American revolution began with colonial resistance against an attempt by their own government to disarm the colonists. We are supposed to be at least as well armed as the US Army.”
Not sure what ANY of that has to do with a bunch of jerks deciding to open carry ARs into a Chipotles.
I’m very well aware of the “ability to fight tyranny” foundation of the Second Amendment. Do you imagine that our founding fathers travelled en masse to get a cup of coffee or a lunch while encumbered with their long arms designed for war? Have any proof of any such thing?
In any case, we need not speculate in the instant case. The OCIYF! proponent are quite explicit about their reason for carrying ARs into Chipotle and Starbucks, as noted in my post, and it is NOT to be prepared to overthrow the government, nor even to defend themselves against criminal attack. If you missed it the first time, just scroll up, I’m too busy to repeat myself.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
(Andrew Branca): “A person who hasn’t learned commonsense good manners and self-interest by the time they’re old enough to purchase firearms isn’t likely to do so thereafter.”
Do you expect “commonsense good manners” like screaming in ALL CAPS and calling people “jackass”, and “jerks” to “rationally change the minds” of open carry advocates?
If not, what did you intend with this essay?
(Andrew Branca): “Ask the “OCIYF!” crowd what their goal is and they’ll tell you it’s to “normalize” public attitudes toward the open carry of long guns in the casual course of running day-to-day errands. …How utterly stupid.”
(Me): “Consider the three guys in plaid with their rifles against the wall, eating breakfast at 0500 in a rural café on the opening day of deer season.”
(Andrew Branca): “Yes, why don’t we consider context.”
Yes, lets. Seems to me “normalize public attitudes” and “create ‘context’ in which open carry of long arms is routine” are pretty much the same thing.
How else would you recommend open carry advocates suppress the public’s reflexive micturition at the sight of firearms? Won’t the first civilians who exercise open carry in a jurisdiction that only recently relaxed restrictions differ systematically from the people who follow the crowd?
Oofah. You’re neither smart enough nor entertaining enough to be worth engaging with.
Think what you like. Do as you like. Support who you like.
As for me, every time I see one of these OCIYF! ass hats damaging the gun rights of ordinary American citizens through their attention-whoring antics, I will call them out on it.
Every. Single. Time.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
(Andrew Branca): “ … every time I see one of these OCIYF! ass hats damaging the gun rights of ordinary American citizens through their attention-whoring antics, I will call them out on it.”
Seems to me your point is that they’d get better results if they were civil. Right?
“Seems to me your point is that they’d get better results if they were civil. Right?”
Seriously? You need Cliff’s Notes for that?
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
“Instead of taking a low-key, holstered-pistols-only approach that would serve more than adequately to assert their “right” to open carry, they instead escalate to the open carry of long guns…”
Except of course that open carry of handguns is not legal in Texas unless you are on your own property. Long guns are legal to open carry. You could have looked up the laws before writing your article (which I generally agree with).
“Except of course that open carry of handguns is not legal in Texas unless you are on your own property. Long guns are legal to open carry. You could have looked up the laws before writing your article (which I generally agree with).”
So what? It makes utterly no difference to my argument, which is that frightening law-abiding men, women, and children, and contesting the right of business owners to manage reasonably their businesses and properties is a LOSING proposition for gun rights.
If I “looked up the laws” for every irrelevant law to my post, I’d never get a post written.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
“It makes utterly no difference to my argument, which is that frightening law-abiding men, women, and children, and contesting the right of business owners to manage reasonably their businesses and properties is a LOSING proposition for gun rights.”
Incorrect Andrew. Have you ever open carried or followed those who are? I see OC all the time here in my state and do not see the panic and fear you describe. Mostly, all I see are children asking questions. I see a few conversations about guns as a result of OC. I do not see people clearing out, calling 911 and so forth. This is easy to do: carry concealed, stay separate from the group and watch.
You massively overstate the fear levels for the purposes of agiprop–just like Moms Demand Action.
Have you taken a serious look at the different photos of the OC protests.
Pluhess I feel safer at the range with cardboard dividers and 15 noobs trying to figure out their rental guns.
I don’t think its “overstating” at all, just because there are areas where it is more accepted doesn’t change the argument, because these yahoo’s are going to area’s where they know its gonna cause an up roar, that’s their entire point.
If their stated goal is to make open carry “more normalized” then what would be the point in going somewhere where it is largely accepted.
Oh, and a point about those gun racks, when we go in to a place to get some grub before we hit the stand, we leave the rifles in the darned truck, its called having manners.
(Smalltown): “Manners always matter, especially when trying to win people over to your point of view. They are a show of respect to those whom you wish to impress and prove that you appreciate being given their time and attention. People behaving the way Mr. Branca described demonstrate to me that they don’t really care what the public thinks of them and are simply doing it for their personal attention.”
We agree, here, about civility.
(Andrew Branca): “… jackass … utterly stupid …their fantasy vision…
(Andrew Branca): “I’ve owned and shot firearms since … I’ve actively engaged in firearms competition since I was … I’ve carried …I’ve been an NRA instructor … I’ve been an NRA Life Member … I think … I think … I think … I also think … I’ve described … If I’m in that Starbucks … my personal “threat radar” … As is my practice … my first move …”
We agree about that “personal attention” bit, too.
btw, Mr. Branca has a book to sell.
“We agree about that “personal attention” bit, too. btw, Mr. Branca has a book to sell.”
It’s always been a point of fascination to me that the modern internet tough guy treats authors as anti-semitics of the Middle Ages treated money-lenders.
Am I supposed to feel shamed because I’ve written a book? A best-selling book, might I add? A book with 98% 5-star rating on Amazon.com?
Am I supposed to feel shamed because I possess a knowledge and skill set that people are willing to freely compensate me for, such that I can support myself, my wife, my children?
Would you be happier if I sold no book, was on the dole, buying internet with an EBT card?
Yes, you dope, I have a book to sell. I work for a living. I’m fortunate enough that people sufficiently respect my work product that they’re willing to send some of their own hard-earned wages to me in exchange for that product.
And in 16 years of doing books, seminars, and speeches, I’ve never had a customer ask for a refund.
I can live with that. And if it causes you angst, all the better.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): ““We agree about that “personal attention” bit, too. btw, Mr. Branca has a book to sell.”
(Andrew Branca): ““It’s always been a point of fascination to me that the modern internet tough guy …
Says the person who wrote: “I’ve described my gun rights “cred.” If I’m in that Starbucks, and such an “OCIYF!” crowd strolls in, they’ve brightened themselves considerably on my personal “threat radar.” As is my practice any time such brightening occurs, my first move after having identified the threat is to assess imminence …”
(Andrew Branca): ““ … treats authors as anti-semitics of the Middle Ages treated money-lenders.‘”
There’s a fallacy of composition here: (1) Andrew Branca is an author. (2) Malcolm treats Andrew thus. (3) Therefore (???), Malcolm treats authors thus.
I hope the book is better argued.
(Andrew Branca): ““Am I supposed to feel shamed because I’ve written a book?”
No. You might, however, restrain yourself from so freely speculating about other people’s motives (e.g., “attention whoring”).
(Andrew Branca): ““ … A best-selling book, might I add? A book with 98% 5-star rating on Amazon.com?”
Congratulations. Seriously.
(Andrew Branca): ““Am I supposed to feel shamed because I possess a knowledge and skill set that people are willing to freely compensate me for, such that I can support myself, my wife, my children?”
No. You might exercise a little restraint in your correction of (what you see as) other people’s errors. I began this exchange with the comment that I agreed with you about people who ostentatiously carry lethal arms. I see nothing uncivil in my first comment. I observed that the public reaction to open carry would be a shrug in some context. You followed with: “Yes, why don’t we consider context.” And I did: “Yes, lets. Seems to me “normalize public attitudes” and “create ‘context’ in which open carry of long arms is routine” are pretty much the same thing.
How else would you recommend open carry advocates suppress the public’s reflexive micturition at the sight of firearms? Won’t the first civilians who exercise open carry in a jurisdiction that only recently relaxed restrictions differ systematically from the people who follow the crowd?”
That’s a practical question about the path from a social environment where firearms are rarely seen to a social environment where they are commonly seen. Where’s the incivility?
To which you responded: “You’re neither smart enough nor entertaining enough to be worth engaging with.”
You were saying something about civility and persuasion?
(Malcolm): ““Seems to me your point is that they’d get better results if they were civil. Right?
(Andrew Branca): “Seriously? You need Cliff’s Notes for that?“
When you learn to use paragraph breaks, Malcolm, I’ll give a second shot at reading your scribblings.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
$20 says Malcolm has some book rejection notices in the drawer of his desk in mom’s basement.
Indeed, wall’o’text.
(Andrew Branca): “When you learn to use paragraph breaks, Malcolm, I’ll give a second shot at reading your scribblings.”
That I doubt, since you’ve dodged my questions previously. But hope springs eternal, so here goes:….
1. If, as you argue, a civil presentation makes a case more persuasive, what’s your purpose in using the following: “jackass”, “utterly stupid”, “their fantasy vision”, “jerks”, “you’re neither smart enough nor entertaining enough to be worth engaging with”, “these OCIYF! ass hats”, “you dope”, “only an idiot would believe …”, “I call your kind petulant children”?
2. We agree: civility matters. I asked earlier “Seems to me “normalize public attitudes” and “create ‘context’ in which open carry of long arms is routine” are pretty much the same thing. How else would you recommend open carry advocates suppress the public’s reflexive micturition at the sight of firearms” …than to carry openly?
3. Hawaii is (or was, until Peruta v. San Diego) a “may issue” State. The County Chiefs of Police make the determination who may and who may not carry concealed. There is no legal open carry of handguns or long arms by civilians outside one’s residence, one’s place of business, the range, or the hunting area. Permission to carry concealed is never granted. Effectively, civilians are (or were) forbidden to carry firearms outside their own property, hunting areas, target ranges, or in transit between these permitted locations. Suppose now that the Honolulu Chief of Police decides to respect the US and Hawaii Constitutions (and pigs fly). After ten years of guns on beach towels, no one will bat an eye, but how do we get from here to there? Someone will be the first to walk down Kalakaua Avenue with an AR-15. How will this NOT constitute “OCIYF”? Haven’t your criteria (“an activity, usually orchestrated among multiple participants, to openly carry firearms for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention to themselves, usually by means of frightening a populace unfamiliar with the sight or practice of open carry”) created a “heckler’s veto”?
@Malcolm Kirkpatrick
To point 3.
“After ten years of guns on beach towels, no one will bat an eye, but how do we get from here to there?”
“Someone will be the first to walk down Kalakaua Avenue with an AR-15.”
You have narrowed the options for getting to comfort with guns to one and only one option. This is not how the real world works. For every problem there are literally hundreds of options to solve that problem. You are rationalizing your solution and discounting or ignoring all others.
Here is a possible solution to your Hawaii situation that isn’t OCIYF. You stated that it is currently legal to only have guns on your property. That means that those that want guns have guns and they leave them at home. Don’t you think that those gun owners talk to their friends about guns? Don’t you think that they may also talk to their co-workers about guns? I bet when someone at their job decides to get a gun then they know just who to go to to get information about gun ownership. That person could be an affable and trustworthy person, someone that you want to talk to about things that might cause you insecurity about guns. That person will do more for the gun movement than any of the fucktards that try to ram their gun rights down everyone’s throat. Truly not everyone wants to own a gun they have that right. They might have insecurity about guns but don’t you think having a respectable gun owner around might turn them around faster than some cocksucker walking down the beach with front facing fully loaded unsafe AR-15.
The day may come when Hawaii allows open carry and our respectable trustworthy gun owner whom everyone knows has a gun comes to work with his gun fully displayed. People that have never seen his gun before may be put on edge at first, but then they remember that the know him and he is safe. I see this all of the time where a pro gun person is being interviewed and at some point the interviewer will say something like “… but you seem like a responsible gun owner, but what about the idiots …” This video (VIDEO: Andrew Branca, Law of Self Defense, Interview on N24 German TV News) illustrates my point exactly.
After reading your exchanges with Mr. Branca, once I got over being blinded by your candle like insight and deafened by your blows at prose. I think my thoughts can be summed up best in a quote from the movie Billy Madison.
“what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room ‘(blog)’ is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Oh, please You’re grasping at straws now.
Be civil.
My experience witnessing homosexual parading (the organized/protest sort, not the “sashay to the salon” type parading) has been much different than Mr. Branca’s. My parents were delegates to a religious convention in my large Southern town which was sashay’ed/protested by a national homosexual group; the nice hardworking homosexuals loudly faked or actually performed sex acts, yelled in elderly folks faces, tried to surround them and intimidate them. I arrived to pick them up, and I am glad to this day that I didn’t do more than I did to move those backslashes away from my 70+ parents and their friends. Other events have unfolded similarly; I guess Branca attended the friendlier sashay events.
Nowadays, one of the homosexuals playing a homosexual on Modern Family says his show is a Trojan Horse (I know, Trojan etc…) intended for regular folk so they’ll think homosexual marriage is OK, that homosexuals are just good hard-working neighbors. If their lifestyles are so noble and pure, why the Trojan Horse approach? Why the Bernays/Adorno/Frankfurt School approach? I prefer to uncouple 2A issues from imaginary “civil rights”, whatever they are.
The “homosexual struggle” has nothing to do with concrete rights possessed by man as a matter of natural law, and its dumb to make any sort of comparison. Homosexuals know their lifestyle choices are disgusting and unnatural, and they overcome the shame they feel and receive by flaunting, bullying and shoving those choices into the public’s faces. It’s no less insulting than these strategically idiotic numbskulls sashaying about with rifles, trolling for their own pathetic share of the attention pie. The difference is,as noted by Branca, homosexuals use television very effectively to skew perceptions of reality, and these open carry idiots don’t. In the end, though -and, pun intended- the homosexual sashayers are doing far more societal damage than the long arm sashayers. Sodom and Gommorah, et al.
From Phillip Van Cleave of VCDL:
2. Thoughts on Chipolte’s new position on carry in their establishments
*****************************************************************
Based on the headlines in the press, you’d swear that the Chipolte restaurant chain is now banning guns on their premises. Lazy, biased reporting does not change the facts, however.
Chipolte has simply taken the same road as Starbucks and Jack-in-the-Box: REQUESTING that gun owners do not carry in their establishments.
That is a night and day difference from banning guns. Clearly all they want is for the anti-gun group Moms Demand Action (MDM) to quit whining and go eat a burrito.
Based on their press release, it is clear that gun owners can continue to legally carry in their establishments – openly or concealed, same is with Starbucks and Jack-in-the-Box.
The MDM call it a victory in an effort to seem relevant, but I can’t quit yawning.
Here is an article with a correctly worded title:
“Chipotle asks customers not to bring firearms to stores”
From theguardian.com: http://tinyurl.com/nfwszpl
“Here is an article with a correctly worded title:
“Chipotle asks customers not to bring firearms to stores””
II that’s a correctly worded title , how exactly is that a win for gun owners?
–Andrew, @LawselfDefense
It is neither a win nor a loss. It does not have to be either, though many people in this culture are so simple minded that they believe “their team” must “win”.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot stop them from open carrying a long gun. Should you encourage legislatures to ban open carry (OC), you become an anti-gun rights activist. We all know that such laws will have other bad provisions attached, or others will soon follow.
Your continued whining about open carry is unbecoming. These people are exercising their right (and not the privilege of concealed carry). I would not do it in the same manner. Many gun owners, including Andrew Branca, are extremely critical of open carry. Doing so negates any say you have in how they engage in OC.
It is time for us to step and start guiding these people. This should have been turned into something more akin to a free speech rally of two. They should have dressed nicely and wore “Guns Save Lives” buttons. They should have handed pamphlets explaining what they were doing and why it was legal.
We gun owners can either help or be ignored. I would prefer to guide them such that open carry is not destructive to our cause.
Oops, I missed a sentence. The second to last paragraph should have read:
“It is time for us to step and start guiding these people. This should have been turned into something more akin to a free speech rally of two. They should have dressed nicely and wore “Guns Save Lives” buttons. They should have handed pamphlets explaining what they were doing and why it was legal. These steps would go a long way toward normalizing carry, minimizing disruptions (if any, and I watch for distruptions around groups of OC’ers) and would show others OC’ers a constructive way to carry their firearms.”
You are all for 2A but what about the reason for 2A … property rights? Where do you stand in regards to that?
This very simple. When you bring up “property rights”, what you are really saying is “My say-so”. It is an immoral position to rank your “say so” over my life and my ability to defend myself against violent attack. Doing so means that person has no regard for life. Property can always be replaced, but life cannot.
“You keep waving around that people aren’t as afraid as everyone makes them out to be, you seem to have put yourself in a position where you know how everyone else feels, narcissists do this, are you one?”
Are you really that shallow? How about standing back from a group of open carriers? Have you tried that? When I do so, I do not see panic, 911 calls, running away or fearful looks. Body language is an indicator of emotional state and I do not see the indicators of either fight or flight.
“When you bring up “property rights”, what you are really saying is “My say-so”.”
Nope I am saying my property. My house, my car, my TV, my computer, my body. If I am on my property then I call the shots, just like when you visit your parents, they call the shots. And if they say you have an 10:00pm curfew well then you have 10:00pm curfew, otherwise they boot your ass out. 2A doesn’t exist on MY property, neither does 1A. Because if it did then I can come to your property and do any damn thing that I like, and at that point property rights become moot and the whole purpose of the Constitution is out the window.
Chipoltle is private property so is Starbucks so is Jack in the Box. If you say that you are pro 2A then you are saying I am pro property.
“It is an immoral position to rank your “say so” over my life”
Then if you are concerned about your life and protecting it then don’t go on the property of people that don’t allow you to defend your life. If you insist that they must allow you on their property then what other injustice must they endure in the name of “your” rights. This can just as easily be turned to say that you must quarter troops on your property or perform abortions on your property. Once again no property no Constitution.
“Are you really that shallow? How about standing back from a group of open carriers?”
Ok how about being on the inside of the restaurant when the OCer’s first arrive at it. How can you make a blanket statement that people aren’t panicked or fearful. The couple that just went out the other door because they were concerned, did you see them? How about the guy that went to the bathroom because he was scared? How can you possibly read the minds of the people in that place? And honestly if you asked anyone after the fact do you think they are going to tell you the truth. Mostly the people that were scared left. They just want to get away.
And how would you respond to the OCer’s showing up at the Mothers for WTFever meeting. Twenty armed people that don’t like you showing up at the parking lot of your meeting. Nothing says we respectfully disagree like a show of force in the parking lot.
“Body language is an indicator of emotional state and I do not see the indicators of either fight or flight.”
And you will never see the crime coming. As I have said multiple times before in previous posts, take a force on force class, maybe, just maybe you might get it.
Ok, now for the real point, “Why do something that makes them take a position at all”?
Just the fact that it is an issue for these businesses now is a win for the anti-gun crowd. How can you not see that?
For years, the left has succeeded in “normalizing” behavior that others find immoral or disturbing by engaging in in your face, confrontational pubic displays.
According to some, that’s a one way street.
Only an idiot would believe confrontation is how “leftist homosexual” behavior got “acceptable.” In reality it was endless years of those same leftist behaviors being demonstrated as normal and responsible (and decidedly NOT extreme) in daily television sitcoms.
But whatever.You want to believe that scaring the crap out of women and children with your open carry of AR’s in coffee shops is going to advance the cause of gun rights. I guess there’s nothing I can do to change your mind.
Just don’t cry about it when I call your kind petulant children when your efforts invariably fail, and in fact HARM gun rights.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
OK, Andrew; believe what you will. You are incorrect in your assessment about the level of fear. It is grossly exaggerated for the purposes of agiprop.
What does the “level of fear” have to do with anything? If one person was disturbed and felt fearful enough to leave, then that was one to many.
Also, you want to say that Andrew is “overstating” the level of fear. Now I have a question; “Where you there?”
Just because it is more accepted in your location doesn’t mean that the same reaction is found everywhere. Andrew didn’t say that folks run screaming from their tables and our the doors. It obviously did cause some level of discomfort for someone otherwise there wouldn’t have been a statement from the business.
How is some dude walking through the front door of a restaurant with a forward facing single point sling, a magazine in, safety off and finger on the trigger, not frightening. I have a gun, and that would push my wtf button. Not mention that it is a long gun. Quick primer for those not in the know: Long gun > Handgun. Or in one word … kinetic energy.
You keep waving around that people aren’t as afraid as everyone makes them out to be, you seem to have put yourself in a position where you know how everyone else feels, narcissists do this, are you one?
Walking around as described is not the correct way to open carry. Do we have video of the incident that shows them carrying their rifles like that or do we have only the pose in the photo? A rifle slung at the side or rear is a safe rifle; the sling is like a holster for a handgun. My guess is that the rifles were slung and they posed like that for the photo.
There are many unanswered questions in my mind regarding this incident. What were the reactions of the people in the store? Many likely didn’t notice right away, or care. Were there 911 calls made? In the last big incident, the police insisted employees hid in the freezer, but the company’s director for security contradicted that statement. Photos also show smiling open carriers AND employees. Why would the police lie and the MSM parrot incorrect statements?
Agreed LSM will jump on anything to unhinge the lovers of peace, but these incidents are indeed unhinging.
Fatboy and grey shirt on right side of photo display guns with magazines. You are right we can only speculate on the actual way that they were carrying coming in, but if they are to lazy or ignorant to know that having a magazine in the gun is not helpful to not being threatening then I am going to make an educated guess that they didn’t come in with the guns slung over their back.
Also a long gun in an urban environment (other than a war zone) as a form of self defense is less than useless, so I guess that they were trying to make a point. So why even bother to load and front point carry a weapon that you are using to make a point, at that point why not make absolutely certain that there is no way that the weapon can fire, and that everyone except the absolutely least educated would know it.
I used to read everything you wrote, and directed many readers of other blogs to your coverage of the Zimmerman trial.
For you to react to a single comment making a legitimate point – that confrontational tactics have been repeatedly used to de-sensitize people to certain types of conduct – with nothing more than name calling and unsupported denial of the point being made tells me not to waste any more time on you.
There’s a someone acting like a petulant child here alright – and his name is Branca.
Has Chipotle put up “No Guns” signs in any of their restaurants? Does anyone have a photo?
Nope!
Now my turn, has Chipotle’s ever taken a position on guns in their business before these morons pulled their little stunt?
It doesn’t matter. They made a request. It is not a ban and it is still legal to carry at Chipotle. In Virginia, the signs have no force behind them. They have to ask the person carrying to leave; they’ll get a trespass charge if they refuse.
Op-Ed: “Open Carry” Activists Score Yet Another Own Goal
The armed demonstrations of “Open Carry” activists sets back gun rights movement.
I am reminded of the absolutists who change every subject to banning all abortions.
This is how you throw away the Reagan legacy. This is how you let the Left take over a center-right nation.
It’s odd that people who don’t even know you will step into a crosswalk in front of your moving vehicle, relying upon you to stop and not run them over. These same people see a trusted and well-liked neighbor with a gun and they flip out. They would trust that neighbor not to hit them with a vehicle, why would they think that same person would shoot them?
Some believe that upsetting the public by parading with firearms obviously, if non-threateningly, displayed, creates a bad impression of those who support firearms rights. In response, I say if people are alarmed by this, then it is they who must become accustomed to it. They have been conditioned by decades of anti-gun propaganda aimed at making the exercise of the right to arms problematic and threatening. Are they afraid when they see Muslims displaying outward symbols of their faith (full beards on the men and burkas on the women)? Yes, some people are afraid. Should Muslims be barred from restaurants for frightening the customers? It would never happen. Does it upset them that the local newspaper prints editorials that espouse opinions they find objectionable? Should the editorial writer be fired because he upset some readers? Should an aspect of a right wither and die merely because the public is unused to its exercise and finds it “objectionable”? What right might not be challenged for having been disused for a period of time? What right will we not sacrifice for fear of public opprobrium? The idea behind the protection of rights is that they are protected against those who find them objectionable. Rights not found objectionable by anyone don’t require protection.
If you’re not for all rights, you’re not for any of them; the fall of one leads to the fall of others. Those rights most reviled require the stoutest defense.
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
Barry Goldwater (Karl Hess, speech writer)
That crowd seems to have a lot of class. To bad it is all low!
I carry a hand gun everywhere I go. I live in a Constitutional carry state. More often than not I open carry. Carrying a properly holstered hand gun is one thing. It seems to me that open carrying a long gun is not carrying for protection but carrying to make a statement. I think the statement they are making is right but the way the are going about it wrong and actually hurts the case for open carry.
I feel the same way about it as I do about gay pride parades. I am a gay man but I don’t think that running around and making a spectacle out of yourself and purposefully trying to offend people is beneficial for any cause.