Some customers at a southwest Houston bagel shop were startled to see people standing around with guns outside the store.
The people outside the Einsten Bros. Bagels on Montrose were with Open Carry Texas -- a group dedicated to the safe and legal carry of firearms openly in the State of Texas.
They say they want to remove the stigma on the appearance of guns in the community and educate people about firearms.
Members of the group claim some people are afraid of weapons because of misinformation from the media and the government.
"They don't classify firearms properly," Ricky McGrath with Open Carry Texas said. "Someone sees an AR-15 and thinks that it's a fully-automatic rifle; when in reality, it's no different than the standard hunting rifle that your father or your grandfather hunts with, or even your husband or your children are using."
Police responded to a call about the men, but say they weren't breaking any laws because it is legal to open carry long guns in Texas.
The reason people are afraid of weapons is not what this simpleton said: that they don't know the distinction between fully- and semi-automatic. It's because they don't know the distinction between the criminal or mentally deranged carrier of the weapon and the lawful one. You guys of the gun all look alike.
This needs to be repeated:
ReplyDelete"It's because they don't know the distinction between the criminal or mentally deranged carrier of the weapon and the lawful one."
Would you people have known what Jared Loughner's intentions were prior to his open fire in the Safeway parking lot in Tucson?
Would you have known James Holmes wasn't a "good guy" prior to his opening fire?
We don't know if the person is a law-abiding citizen or an individual prohibited from owning or carrying a gun. It is insane to assume they are law abiding especially if they have the ability to unleash a massive amount of fire power on a crowd.
As for the reporting the person to the police--if one has a reasonable suspicions that someone may be commuting a crime.
We do not know that the person carrying a gun is law abiding and that is not for the public to ascertain--that's the job of the police.
And from listening to the open carry crowd--they know they will interact with police and seem to want that as they are prepared with recording equipment.
You lot seem to forget that both Heller and McDonald said the Second Amendment was not an unlimited right.
Heller:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
McDonald:
"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54)"
The New Second Amendment right created hy Heller and McDOnald is a very limited right.
Laci,
DeleteLets not forget about Moore vs Madigan, though it would have been interesting to see it progress to SCOTUS.
"Police responded to a call about the men, but say they weren't breaking any laws because it is legal to open carry long guns in Texas."
I think this is going to get interesting in Texas. In an earlier posting of Mike's three open carriers were charged with disorderly conduct because the police interpreted the law as meaning all you need is one person who doesn't like it to make it a crime.
Yet in this case police determined the activity was lawful, even though they were called to investigate also. So, if the previous case supports the open carry law, it will serve as a lesson to law enforcement that legal activity is still legal even if someone doesn't like it.
Many calls reporting open carry can be handled by the dispatchers asking good questions like, "What is he doing". And them reminding the caller that open carry is legal. Keep in mind that this likely already happens often in Texas. The police would be pretty busy if they investigated every instance of open carry.
"The New Second Amendment right created by Heller and McDonald is a very limited right." (spell corrections applied)
DeleteLaci, there is no "new" second amendment, the second civil right has not been amended. Further if your going to quote the Supreme Court reading, please include all of it. Picking out parts that seem to suit your wants do not change the facts in the case.
Also the states also have their laws on the carrying of weapons. So there are 50 different limitations on the second civil rights that currently exist. Those cannot be summarily dismissed.
You forget that the Constitution and the Court do not grant us our rights. We're born with them, and it's the job of government to protect those rights.
DeleteThis is why people call gun loons, loons.
DeleteYou are born with the right to own and carry a gun?
Is that then a natural right?
A God given right?
What about those born before guns were invented? Were they born with a right to own a gun?
What about a child? According to you a child has no right to live, because a child's death is an acceptable cost to your right to own a gun.
The only reason you have a right to own a gun, is because the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd amendment, to say you do.
This is a professor? HA!
I take the same view that the Founders took--we are born with our rights. The right to own and carry a gun is derived from the right to defend ourselves and the right to property.
DeleteThis guy thinks that passes as logic? HA!
DeleteThe point of my post had nothing to do with the legality of open carry but with the delusion that demonstrations of open carry will reduce the stigma. I don't think they do, rather they reinforce the division between gun-rights fanatics and everybody else.
DeleteDo you agree that in the State of Texas it is currently legal to open carry these weapons? Even if you don't think it is a Constitutional right, doesn't Texas have the right to legalize this if they so desire?
ReplyDeleteThe open carry of long arms has been legal in Texas since Moby Dick was a guppy. The open carry of handguns was legal a long time ago but barred the concealed carry of such. Then came the time that the carry of handguns were barred altogether except on legitimate business or personal trips of distance where personal protection was a need.
DeleteIn 1996 the license of conceal carry only was issued. Yet thru out this entire transformation, open carry of long guns was never addressed. Society had just grew in concentrated population areas that the open carry of long arms had diminished. In the open areas of Texas its still a common sight to see long arms openly carried. You still see pickup trucks with rifle racks in the back window full of long guns.
Texas recognized the constitutional right to keep and bear and did little to restrict that right. In 1995 and back, the crime rate was higher than the national average. In 1996 with the shall issue of concealed carry permits, the crime rate fell a full fifty percent and still continues to fall percentage points every year. Texas amended the Texas constitution in 1996 to reflect that it has the right to regulate the wearing of arms, this regulation was solely on handguns and was never interpreted to involve long guns. The laws on guns in Texas can be found on the State of Texas gun laws website. It also covers all laws on any deadly weapons.
I don't care about open carry. Open carry if you want, but do not be drinking or doing dangerous shit which impedes your judgement. It is when these retards DELIBERATELY PROVOKE people by sticking their weapons in to the face of the normal non-gunsuck public that the problem arises.
ReplyDeleteWell, aside from your insults and pejorative terms, I think we agree here. Carry isn't a problem. The problem is irresponsible behavior such as carrying while intoxicated, and criminal behavior such as the aggravated assault you describe.
DeleteI agree with that too, but I find the whole business of open carry stupid because it's counterproductive to your stated goals.
DeleteSomeone needs to donate a dictionary to Anonymous.
DeleteI will partially agree with you Mike, in as much if you don't have a reason to open carry a long arm other than to make a statement, it is somewhat counter productive.
DeleteThere are in my view other ways to be able to educate the public overall, increase awareness of what is legal what isn't and why the need to use ALL of your rights or risk loosing them one at a time is an important subject to address.
To teach anyone to fear firearms is also counter productive in so many ways. Proper education about them will dispel many fears and make even those who wishes not to own them respect of the firearm and those that do wish to own them.
I can give tons of comparison examples without using the firearm as an example.
I agree that it can be, but I like that many states allow open or concealed carry. That way, I don't get in trouble if my jacket blows open, or if I take off my suit coat while driving, etc.
DeleteAs for the public's perception of open carry, it's interesting that it is viewed as this horrible, provocative thing whereas concealed carry is the civilized way to carry so that one doesn't offend others. Yet, in the past, open carry was thought of as the only civilized and honest way to carry while concealed carry was considered the M.O. of an assassin.
The one who needs a dictionary, is NRA Greg, as I pointed out before.
ReplyDeleteGun control Jim, you must be pleased that Mikeb allowed your pointless attack to go through. I have many dictionaries in multiple languages, and none of them include gunsuck.
Deletei can only wonder why you did not use your dictionary to look up "push" or "right."
ReplyDeleteThe founders put into writing, in a legal document, those rights they believed every person should have, knowing that only a legal document can ensure those rights in a court of law. because they set up a government ruled by law, not some king, or dictator.
Funny how the founders thought women, blacks, or whites who did not own property, were not deserving of those rights they enshrined in their legal document.
What's funny is how you missed the fact that you got something right--the document ensures our rights, but doesn't create them. Alterations to the document could violate our rights, such as Prohibition. But the rights remain.
DeleteRegarding the Founders, the fact that they didn't fully understand or apply what they wrote doesn't invalidate the moral power of their writings.
Yes, the mentioned certain rights in that document, but the Declaration of Independence credited these rights as being preexisting and only protected by the government.
DeleteAnd before Laci comes in and says, "The Declaration doesn't matter because it was superseded by the Constitution!" Yes. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but the Declaration is useful, like his often cited Magna Carta, for looking at how they conceived of rights and of the relationship of government and governed.
Moreover, this idea was carried over in the Constitution when they wrote, in the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Of course, apparently Jim and Laci are of the Robert Bork school of jurisprudence and consider this amendment as equivalent to an "ink blot."
Which IS strange considering the number of times Laci has shouted about how every word in the Constitution has meaning.
We've been through this before. You mix up moral and legal.
DeleteThe founders were hypocrites.
You, like Bork, ignore that our laws here were supposed to enshrine and protect those moral rights, giving them the power and backing of the law.
DeleteYes, they were human beings and hypocrites in some areas. That doesn't justify your throwing out everything they said.
Keep lying about what I said, it proves me correct about you two NRA liars.
Delete