Why should we trust people who openly carry guns?

Case in point:

Two Bodies Found in Arlington House, Suspect Drove Herself to Mental Hospital: Police

Yep, she killed her stepdaughter--her own kids weren't victims

Rights come with responsibilities.

And they also come with the fact that if you misuse your "right", you may have an encounter with the cops.

And, yes, whether you like it or not, the cops want people to report someone who is carrying a weapon in public:

Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris Cook said residents should not feel too intimidated to report people carrying guns in public places.

'Let us determine what is lawful or unlawful,' Lt. Cook said Friday.

Open carry advocates are upset that they get "sussed" by the cops.  But, here is what the cops have to say about this:

Lt. Cook points out it's against the law to knowingly file a false police report. But he said the greater fear is that citizens fail to report armed individuals, either because they feel intimidated or because they've become desensitized to guns on the streets.

Let's face it, there is a good point to calling the cops if someone sees someone who looks like they shouldn't be walking around with a firearm  if it was true that Jared Loughner was openly carrying prior to the Tucson shooting.

Especially if the person walking around has the type of weapon that could wipe out a lot of people.

Last year, a student parked a car at a supermarket near the campus of the University of New Haven, He got out carrying two handguns, which he took to class with him. Bystanders thought that looked suspicious, even though it was actually legal for him to have the handguns. They called 9-1-1. Police responded and investigated. They found another gun in his car, an illegal assault rifle, Police also found the student also had news clippings and pictures of previous spree killers all over his bedroom. 

So, yeah, those callers were not technically reporting something illegal: just something suspicious. And they probably prevented a mass shooting.


The problem is that the open carry movement is about baiting the cops and those who don't feel comfortable seeing people walk around in public with a lot of firepower.  That's a recipe for disaster.

Seriously, are you people so stupid that you would enable a mass shooter?  You give him/her the firepower--would you also give him/her the opportunity?

So, if you clowns want to walk around carrying weapons in public--live with the consequences of your actions.

But, I have to admit I am happy that the open carry movement exists since they are so far out on the fringe of gunloonery and full of irresponsible people that they are the best thing to happen for our side.  Eventually, they will piss off most people with their antics.

See also:

• Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports

Maybe it's because of all the baseball bats...

The only things getting assaulted were baseballs, and the only things stolen was bases.

OK, assume this is correct.  How does this effect the "shootings happen in gun free zones?"

Conversely, it has been said that Jared Loughner openly carried his weapon for at least 15 minutes prior to when he went on his rampage in the parking lot in Tucson.

Why should people be forced to decide who is a "good guy with a gun" and who is a potential threat?

Epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

Of course, the serious studies are finding that the gun for protection belief is most likely false.

Why else would the gun lobby want to prevent serious research into this issue if the results didn't go against their claims?

The only person who can stop someone with a gun...

In case you have short memories.

Another open carrier robbed!

"I like your gun...give it to me!"

Yeah, we know the entire progun argument is based on lies and half-truths, such as John Lott's obviously bullshit "More guns, Less crime" and the disproven Kleck DGU study.

Anyway, the perp wore flip flops.

More here.

It doesn't look like having a gun is the best method of self-defence...

Question of the day.

Is this the America YOU want to raise kids in?

You gotta love open carry, they make it so much easier to make the pro-gunners look really fringy.  Not that they need too much help to do that anyway.

Scalia realises that Heller decision was a mistake

upon encounter with open carry idiot:

Public Opinion of the Open Carry Movement

Nope. Gonna have a hard time trying to get people to see you as somewhat "normal" no matter what you say.

Doesn't look like she's too happy with these people.

Kinda says it all: doesn't it?

On the Attempt to Culturally Norm Insane Behaviour

Hitchhiking with a chainsaw isn't illegal per se....

Quote of the day

Most cops in this country see the guy who carries an exposed handgun when he doesn’t have to as a show-off, especially in a setting where the overwhelming majority of others don’t carry. Particularly when one of the citizens is alarmed and makes that clear to the officer, the cop may want to know why you felt a need to flaunt lethal force in a peaceful setting. While the act of carrying may be technically legal, a citizen’s complaint about it can create probable cause for arrest on a charge of disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, particularly if you become argumentative with that officer. At least one state has a statute that prohibits “Going Armed To The Terror of the Public.”

Source

Why Presser v. Illinois is the progunner's worst nightmare.

Of course, Scalia dismissed it in his exposition of mendacity called District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), but he also dismissed such pearls as:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

and

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive

Since they "weren't helpful".

That's putting it mildly--they totally contradict your position.

After all, why not dismiss anything which shows that what you are saying is total bollocks?

The American people are too happily ignorant to notice anyway.

Anyway...

Presser basically is making the same tired argument we hear over and over about being part of an unorganised militia, except that term didn't have actual currency back then in US Federal law.  The court tossed that argument since Presser wasn't part of the enrolled militia.

Even better, Presser actually addressed the incorporation issue.  If Heller is a joke, then McDonald v. Chicago is even worse of a joke since Presser came to the correct conclusion about the matter:

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

Yeah, the Second Amendment relates to congress' power under article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16--not state power.

I thought that Alito was on the ball when he asked if congress' power was "plenary" in the Heller.  Yeah, it is which means that the answer is:

The right is related to the militia and congress' power to arm it

Seriously, you had it right in US v Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), WHAT MADE YOU GO FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST POSITION??? DIDN'T THINK YOU WOULD GET CAUGHT????

Back to the story,  Presser concerned people openly carrying while pretending to be a militia and claiming their Second Amendment right, but the court swatted it down saying:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266]   it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

Oh dear, it's that nasty civic right interpretation.

And, unlike Justice Stevens' version, this one actually got it right on incorporation.

Presser even compares the First Amendment claim:

We have not been referred to any statute of the United States which confers upon the plaintiff in error the privilege which he asserts. The only clause in the constitution which, upon any pretense, could be said to have any relation whatever to his right to associate with others as a military company, is found in the first amendment, which declares that 'congress shall make no laws ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This is a right which it was held in U. S. v. Cruikshank, above cited, was an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guarantied by, the United States. But it was held in the same case that the right peaceably to assemble was not protected by the clause referred to, unless the purpose of the assembly was to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.

By now, I am laughing my arse off since this case is a serious nugget when looked at in relation to the farce that is Heller-McDonald.  Combine Presser with Miller, and Heller-McDonald is the serious odd man out.

As I have been pointing out, it is a tough stretch to say that carrying weapons in public outside the national defence context is protected (again, the US Constitution makes it clear it addresses NATIONAL Defence and no where mentions self-defence).

I keep mentioning that if the law is silent on the topic, one cannot assume or imply it is somehow addressed, which is something else Presser mentions:

Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

In the case of the Second Amendment, it is silent on personal uses if firearms, unlike state constitutions which specifically mention self-defence.  That was something Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent.  In fact, some State Constitutions  offer a greater level of protection for "gun rights" than the US Constitution.

Anyway, I think Presser makes it pretty clear the right is tied to militia service:

It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are [116 U.S. 252, 268]   authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

As a nation has the right to national defence, a state has the right to legislate for the general welfare.
The ability to regulate or prohibit arms is something which is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order.
 
It is not for judges to make law, but to interpret it.  It is even less their place for judges to amend the constitution outside the written constitutional framework.  The court went well beyond any constitutional powers that it was granted  by making this decision for there is no constitutional provision which allows for judicial reviews of laws (that comes from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 [1803]).

I keep wishing that someone with more academic clout/prestige would take up these arguments, but it seems that I am the little boy who is saying the emperor has no clothes here.

But, I have loads of evidence he is as naked as a jaybird.

Quote of the Day

Lt. Cook points out it's against the law to knowingly file a false police report. But he said the greater fear is that citizens fail to report armed individuals, either because they feel intimidated or because they've become desensitized to guns on the streets.
www.wfaa.com/story/local/2014/08/27/14203536/

Presser in a nutshell

I'm glad you lot are such legal scholars.

Does this picture bother you?

Are you happy to see these kids waving guns around (despite their fingers being on the trigger)?

Do you see a difference between the picture above and this one?

How about this one?

Is this what you want us to see as normal?

BTW, the kids at the top are a Palestinians in Gaza.

Quote of the Day

Open Carry Normal?

Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation.  When police are called to a “man with a gun” call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed.  Officers may have no idea that these people are simply “exercising their rights.”  Consequently, the law enforcement response is one of “hypervigilant urgency” in order to protect the public from an armed threat.  Should the gun carrying person fail to comply with a law enforcement instruction or move in a way that could be construed as threatening, the police are forced to respond in kind for their own protection.  It’s well and good in hindsight to say the gun carrier was simply “exercising their rights” but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms

San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, “Unloaded Open Carry,” Jan. 14, 2010, available at http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/San-Mateo-County-Sheriffs-Office_Unloaded-Open-Carry.pdf

See also:
smartgunlaws.org/open-carrying-policy-summary/

Going Armed to the Terror of the People

If people are going to try and claim that there is some form of "Second Amendment right" to carry a weapon in public outside the context of actual militia service (like it or not, Presser v. Illinois, 16 U.S. 252 [1886] seems to be quite on point that it is not protected).

This is a common law offense. Common law made it clear that it was contrary to law to go about in public. , "the offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of  Northampton, 2 Edward 3d, ch. 3d, upon pain of forfeiture of the arms and imprisonment during the Kings pleasure." 

It is hard to imagine a right that would somehow contradict prohibited and antisocial activity.  Indeed, the crime of Going Armed to the Terror of the People consists of the following elements:

A person guilty of this offense
(1)  arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon
(2)  for the purpose of terrifying others and
(3)  goes about on public highways
(4)  in a manner to cause terror to the people.

Element (1). In  State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418 (1843), the court held that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422. In that case it was argued that a gun cannot constitute an unusual weapon, “for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort.” Id. The court rejected that argument, concluding: “A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.” Id.
Element (4). The offense of affray involves fighting in public to the terror of the people. For purposes of that offense, cases hold that if members of the public experience fear, the “to the terror of the people” element is satisfied. In re May, 357 N.C. 423, 428 (2003). In an unpublished case involving a charge of going armed to the terror of the people, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found this element satisfied where the defendant shot his gun while driving closely behind another vehicle on a public highway. State v. Toler, 716 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions were not “to the terror of the people” where the only people involved were those in the victim’s car, and stating: “We find this to be substantial evidence that this behavior was intended to be to the terror of the people and was in fact to the terror of the people. The fact that a limited number of witnesses testified regarding Defendant’s actions does not change the character of those actions.”).

In other words, if one causes fear in the general public then you are guilty of this offence.

As I said before,  William Rawle explained this in relation to the Second Amendment in his treatise "A View of the Constitution of the United States", 125--26 1829 (2d ed.):

"This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment."

While some people would like to claim that carrying weapons in public is covered by the Second Amendment, Presser v. Illinois, 16 U.S. 252 [1886]

It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are [116 U.S. 252, 268]   authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

Although, one thing that the Presser court made clear was that the Second Amendment right was tied to militia service and that carrying weapons outside that context was not covered by the Amendment.

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

As I have said before,  I'm rather surprised that Presser has been neglected in Second Amendment jurisprudence.  Although, maybe surprise is the wrong word to use since this decision so clearly supports the "Civic Right" interpretation of the Second Amendment by pointing out that the right to bear arms is only protected when it relates to militia service.

Presser was doing what open carry advocated do these days and walking about claiming his Second Amendment right to bear arms in public. He was not engaging in menacing activity (although the common law does not really require actual menace, the mere fact one is carrying a weapon in public is enough to prove menace).  To be quite frank, Presser is the gun rights fanatic's worst nightmare.

I would add that any "incorporation" issue is also addressed in this decision by pointing out that the Second Amendment right DOES apply to the states if they were to abridge the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militias under the aspect of Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, not private uses.

As US v. Miller said, [it is] With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.  Which means, as William Rawle pointed out, the first and second clauses of the Second Amendment are corollaries and must be considered together.

There is no right to go about armed outside the context of national service and the law should not be misinterpreted to say there is. Additionally, one cannot claim a right to terrorise people.

See also:

• Going Armed to the Terror of the People « North Carolina Criminal Law

Quote of the Day

 “A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.
State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843)


Actual passage from the decision:
The bill of rights in this State secures to every man indeed, the right to "bear arms for the defence of the State."  While it secures to him a right of which he cannot be deprived, it holds forth the duty in execution of which that right is to be exercised.  If he employ those arms, which he ought to wield for the safety and protection of his country, to the annoyance and terror and danger of its citizens, he deserves but the severer condemnation for the abuse of the high privilege, with which he has been invested.

"It has been remarked, that a double--barrelled gun or any other one, cannot in this country come under the description of "unusual weapons," for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use guns of some sort.  But we do not feel the force of this criticism.  A gun is an "unusual weapon," wherewith to be armed and clad.  No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements-as a part of his dress-and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.  But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence.  For any lawful purpose-either of business or amusement-the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun.  It is the wicked purpose-and the mischievous result-which essentially constitute the crime.  He shall not carry  about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm, a peaceful people."

Open Carry v. Open Carry

Open Carry Texas is hoping to have a demonstration in Houston's predominently black Fifth Ward.  The hope is that an armed society is a polite society will somehow prevail.

"We have a bad history with white men who would come into the 5th ward with guns in the name of a lynch mob," said activist Quanell X


It seems that some opponents of the march not only are exercising their right to self-defence, but are also openly carrying.  The open carry movement seems to be achieving its objective of getting people to exercise their "rights".

When will more people wise up that the phrase "an armed society is a polite society' comes from a crappy sci-fi novel and has no basis in reality?

Anyway, watch as perceived "rights" clash with each other and the rule of law!

Is this really the world these people want to create?  Do you want to live in a society which is like Somalia?

BTW, if the video embed code doesn't work, watch the video here:
www.khou.com/story/news/local/2014/08/13/open-carry-demonstration-meeting/14037147/

Open Carry Dildo

I guess it had to happen.

Gotta admit a dildo is more intimidating than a gun:


So, strap one on and make up for your lack of manhood.