In your face
Consequence for carrying shotguns into libraries.
Update:
Dear folks coming here from this OpenCarry thread,
I cannot comment there, so I will here. Police your own. Carrying a shotgun into a library is not going to win hearts and minds. It’s going to turn people away. This bill is going to draw more attention to the incident that led this politician to propose the bill. And not your rights.
You have rights. We get that. But when you’re focusing on your right and acting like a jerk, people tend to focus on that whole being a jerk part. There are effective ways to to win hearts and minds with respect to OC. Flashing guns at librarians and toting a shotgun on your back are not some of those ways.
This is like the kiss-ins that gay groups used to have. I’m all for gay rights and support gay marriage. But I don’t think a bunch of gay dudes kissing at the mall is effective at converting people to their cause.
You guys suck at marketing. And that’s it.
Hugs and kisses,
SayUncle
P.S. Tell the guy carrying the shotgun around town to knock it off.
Update 2: Oh for fuck’s sake. One of these guys carried an AR-15 to a Ponderosa Steakhouse and was surprised to be asked to leave. Seriously, you’re not helping. Carry a handgun. Leave the rifles and shotties at home or in the car.
February 16th, 2011 at 11:56 am
So now comes the discrimination…. If I could get way with it I would carry and a paratrooper fal everywhere I go… Pistols are backup weapons when all else has failed.
February 16th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Since Breda’s blog requires google or “open ID” accounts if you want to comment, I don’t go there anymore.
I read the attached article and it noted that TWO bills have been prepared. One would add libraries to the no-go list. The other would ban “gun-free zones” (AKA Designated Victim Enclosures). Yet only the first is being blamed on the kid who was too young to own a handgun. (He therefore carried a shotgun on his back). Shouldn’t he also get the credit for the bill to ban gun-free zones?
February 16th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
That was a joke right?
Please tell me that was a joke.
Because if the threat of hoplophobic legislators introducing bills is all it takes to prevent us from engaging in activism, we’re in big trouble.
By that standard, we’d better stop any kind of activism at all because pretty much ANY activity results in some hoplophobic politician introducing an anti-gun bill, regardless of its chances of passing.
We’d better just lock our guns in cabinets at home, never mention to anyone that we own or use them and meekly live our lives hoping that no one will come and take them away.
Assuming that the linked post wasn’t supposed to be satire (and I strongly suspect that it wasn’t) this is nothing more than further evidence (as if we needed any) that Breda’s position on this issue is nothing more than emotion-based hyperbole.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Curt, this is a fight that could have been avoided. I’m all for OC. Those guys that carried into the library, I was fine with. Until the shotgun guy showed up. That’s just stupid.
Telling OCers they suck at marketing is emotion-based hyperbole?
February 16th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Would it also be stupid to carry an AR-15 while fishing on a public dock/fishing area where children commonly walk by?
February 16th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Curt, this is a fight that could have been avoided.
Bingo. Telling these particular OC’ers they suck at marketing is the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Oh, noes, a bill banning gay marriage was introduced! All you gays, back in the closet! You gays suck at marketing.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
“Seriously, you’re not helping.”
Africans-Americans at Southern lunch counters–help or hinderance?
Them gun owners getting mighty uppity out thar, I say, I say. Fetch me a mint julep.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
The fight has to come sometime. By the way unc your ponderosa steakhouse incident occurred last february… Wouldn’t that make update 2 update 1 seeing how the shotgun incident occurred last december….
You should also check out the part of the article where the congressman is trying to repeal all pistol free zones in the state…
February 16th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
These OC advocates are being intentionally offensive and then decrying the reaction to their offense. This is why I’m ambivalent to the OC movement most times, and just pissed off to be associated with them at times like this one.
If the african-americans went to lunch counters and exposed themselves, the analogy would be closer.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
you can’t choose to black. you can choose not to strap an AR on your back and grab a crappy steak.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
It was the “in your face” and over the top protests and activism that got the gay rights movement actually moving. Before that, it was all “don’t scare the straight folks,” for exactly the same reasons people are getting so upset over these OC “incidents”. And the movement remained absolutely stagnant until the Stonewall riots prompted the aggressive activism.
Both approaches have merit, and they need to be combined to be most effective.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
OC = coming out of the closet.
I am OK with that analogy.
February 16th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
On that thought, if you disagree with ‘kiss-ins’ but support gay rights otherwise, then I think you would agree that two gay people could kiss in public places and that would be OK with you, right?
February 16th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
If the intent of the OC movement was to “normalize” open carrying that was a massive fail.
Does anyone really believe that carrying an AR-15 into a restaurant is something we’d normally do if we had the chance? Of course not, we’d leave the AR-15 at home and take the handgun.
The open carry movement should be about taking the scary out of firearms in public, not about being a “but it’s my right” dick. So start by actually carrying the firearms you’d actually carry into a library or restaurant instead of what will get the best shock value.
And yes, I used to live in one open carry state and now live in another. Even in the backwoods of North Idaho no-one carries long guns into libraries or restaurants, it’s too damn inconvenient. Even during hunting season they stay in the truck where you don’t have to worry about muzzle sweep.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
All,
Welcome to the Gun Rights Bowl. We’ve been playing since 1776, when we saw the Rights of the People push the Powers of the State back into their own end zone in 1787 and we got a touchdown with the Second Amendment.
Powers of the State received the kick-off and got held at their 10 yard line for a while. Good, patient offensive players, the Powers… they managed to keep possession of the ball, doing small plays until 1934, when they broke through the Rights’ defense and advanced to the 35 yard line. They got another good running play in 1968 and a exrebale but effective audible play by Sharpton in 1982 called the Hugh’s Amendment.
In 1992, 3rd down and 8 at the 25, the Powers tried another big play, thinking it would get then on their last push toward total total gun ownership ban. It wasn’t looking good, folks. The Right’s cheerleaders were giving it their all, but the audience was in the bathroom and buying a hot-dog.
Well, they make it to 4th down and 1, 18 yard line, and the audience figured out what was going on. The voters threw a flag on the play, and the ball changed hands back to the Rights.
So the Rights held tight, and moved the ball back to our 25 yard line when the Assault Weapon Ban expired. Then came Heller onto the field, and we have a big passing play and when the dust settled, we were on our 40 yard line, 1st down and we following with a rushing play spearheaded by MacDonald, with Gura calling the plays.
So, here we are. It’s a long way down to the field to another touchdown. Our cheerleaders are smoking hot with great moves. Their old, tired cheerleaders are leading with great motivators like “I’ll take triple the violent crime rate as long as nobody gets killed with a gun!” When Gura fires the ball, he slices right through the defense, but you gotta give him time and space to make the plays.
What we don’t need is someone on our line going off-sides, or worse, earning us a penalty. The ball’s going to move people, but it can also go backward.
I know it’s tempting to throw a Hail Mary and hope to Go, All, The, Way, but you’re risking an interception, change of possession, and the Powers will do their damnedest to drive us back into our endzone. (As we’ve seen elsewhere, that’s end game until the next revolution.) Let them get momentum and they’ll do it.
So, take it easy, go for short 3-yard plays, let Gura figure out the defense and lead the well planned break-out. And ask yourself:
What are you doing to move the ball down the field for the Rights of The People? And are you going to be the guy known as the one that got the penalty that cost us the game?
February 16th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Lets ask Mr. Ung about how effective handguns are?? Marginal at best.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
While I generally agree that carrying a shotgun into a library is asking for trouble, I also accept that for some to exercise their enumerated right is also going to be offensive to others.
This individual didn’t have the option of carrying a pistol, because he was under 21, but over 18. Do we now tell our under 21 2nd Amendment advocates that their rights are no longer as important as the rights of those over 21?
Acceptance of publicly carried firearms will only happen if they are PUBLICLY carried.
What makes the shotgun more offensive than an open carried pistol? Because it is bigger? Effective range is similar, so that can’t be it.
Breda herself enjoyed open carry in Arizona, where no one freaks out about it. How does she think that happened?
People got all bent out of shape because someone carried an AR15 to a rally in Arizona, too, but no one should have. AR’s are no more deadly than shotguns, and no more deadly than pistols. Dead is dead, right? None of them are more dangerous or less dangerous.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Listen gang, if I’m in Wal-mart and someone walks in with a AK or FAL or Rem. 870, I will keep a sharp eye on them and my hand near my gun.
Just looks to much like a nut-job for me not to.
Plus, no doubt any nut-job would first off the long gun holder (from the back) before doing anything else.
Common sense folks. Keep it concealed.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
It all comes back to the same thing, why do you carry in the first place. My gun is not a piece of jewelry. If I choose to carry, what is my reason for doing so? It should not be to impress any thought or idea into someone else’s mind. That would be wrong of me. Just as it would be wrong for someone else to use a gun to change my mind. Offensive, even.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Oh, and far too many people are sounding an awful lot like the media. “Its an assault rifle” or “the weapon was an AK 15″ or “the weapon was an AR 47″!
A gun is a gun is a gun.
For those of you who think it was stupid:
Please explain just what someone between 18-21 is supposed to do to support gun rights and the right to carry?
If your answer is: Wait until he is 21, you fail!!
Stop allowing them in the military then!!
February 16th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
In 1982, I went with my dad to the bank in northerly AZ, and he was open carrying a S&W 629. The teller was a leathery old-as-the-hills guy with a mustache and a cowboy hat. He looked at my dad, looked at me (just a boy), and told him, “you know, carrying it everywhere on your hip doesn’t make you a cowboy, but it does make you look like a bank robber.” My dad was pretty embarrassed by that, and he didn’t open very often afterward.
Sometimes, even the best of us (he was) need a reality check.
February 16th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Sounds like the old guy was an ignorant dick… If I do not have it shoved in your face I am not a bank robber..
February 16th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
So far the OC advocates here are failing to convince me of the brilliant genius of this move.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
They are not trying to convince a skeptic like you SPQR.. They prefer a less cynical crowd…
February 16th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
John, I’m not a skeptic nor a cynic.
That’s why this is a fail.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
OC is about all we have open here in California, I’d hate to see the marketing fail so spectacularly. People get robbed all the time without the gun being shoved in their face. A gun is a gun is a marketing opportunity or a big marketing fail. What someone between 18-21 is supposed to do to support gun rights is to be active in the community, run for Mayor or Senate or whatever, and vote – but don’t run for Gun-Collector.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Yeah, we’re all in this civil rights fight together, but some of our allies use better mental discipline than others, and that’s all Uncle is trying to point out here. It’s really all about thinking the conflict through: use the tactics that are proven to work, and when the right is fully established, or at least, well on it’s way to being fully established, THEN we can have discussions/demonstrations over tactics of the conflict and how to end it successfully.
The VERY cogent question of what is the 18-21 year old guy to do, the answer is simple: go with someone who can O/C or C/C a handgun. What did he used to do at amusement parks when at a game/ride that said “must be accompanied by….?
February 16th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
DirtCrasher,
Guess you fail the Constitutional Law course…Can’t be a senator until you are at least 30 years of age.
As for running for Mayor, why would anyone want to if they aren’t even allowed their enumerated Constitutional rights?
I said from the outset that doing this may be asking for trouble, but all I have seen so far is a bunch of knee jerk reaction.
Come on folks, think this through a little better.
Use the “Jews in the attic test”.
Apply Joe’s question.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx
IF restricting access does not make anyone safer, (and with a single exception no one has proven it does), then restricting access in a library doesn’t either! If that is the case, there is no reason for anyone to be complaining about this!
February 16th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
You are all missing the point. You need to be quiet in a library. A suppressed shotgun or rifle would be fine, but not a non-NFA gun (or attachment). Geez. Always reading too much into things.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Other than the occasional “In Your Face, It’s my right to carry, thrill seeker” I have no problem with constitutional carry. I do think it was a poor decision to carry a long gun into both the library and Ponderosa simply because, what are you going to do with it? Hang it by the sling over your chair? Wearing a handgun is different. I’ve yet to see a gunrack at a restaurant or library …
February 16th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
It is interesting to me how the OC subject divides the Gun Crowd. You have your “why does anyone need a handgun?” fuds… your “keep it hidden but no OC” folks… your “OC is OK, but no rifles” folks… your “rifles are ok in the country but not in the city” folks… etc.
It will be a great day when no one gives a 2nd glance at anyone for carrying whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. (Yes, I mean libraries, courtrooms, planes, etc.) People should be judged by their actions, not by the manner in which they carry some piece of metal. The only excitement then will be “Hey, that looks cool. What is that you’re carrying?”
February 16th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
No. I have it broken down differently. Do you do something that freaks out the average joe or not? I err on the side of not.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Who makes the determination of what freaks ‘the average joes’ out?
I have heard plenty of people argue that a handgun freaks ‘average joes’ out. I have even heard in one of the comments sections about someone opposing OC of handguns simply because the barrel on their revolver was too long.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
i’m guessing if they call the cops on you, they’re probably freaked out.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
I have had the cops called on me for carrying a Glock 23. Should we all stop carrying anything in that size or larger?
February 16th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
“Do you do something that freaks out the average joe or not? I err on the side of not.”
Taking a hint from Feynman, I prefer not to live my life guided by what other people think.
February 16th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
I’m all for concealed and open carry, and, yes, people should have the right to carry a rifle or shotgun like that. But it still remains that people are averse to change, and while “non-gun people” continue to slowly accept handguns, let’s be honest: some guns still scare them more than others. I can see the argument that “it will only be shocking to people the first couple times they see it,” of course.
I just don’t think it’s cut and dried on either side of the issue is all. I tell you what, though, it’s nice that we are to the point where gun owners can argue about not whether they can or should carry but What to carry.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
That attitude means you will soon be told to do based on what other people thing. One of the flaws with the system.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
“This is like the kiss-ins that gay groups used to have. I’m all for gay rights and support gay marriage. But I don’t think a bunch of gay dudes kissing at the mall is effective at converting people to their cause.”
It may not convert, but after seeing that (or, say, pics from the Folsom Street Fair), a gay or lesbian couple walking through the mall holding hands wouldn’t be shocking to some as it may have been otherwise.
Same concept applies here. If someone on the fence sees someone with a holstered pistol after witnessing or reading about the OC shock troops, their first reaction might be “oh, at least it’s not a scary black rifle.” And if the pistol no longer shocks, we’re on our way back to normalcy.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
The point is: Yes, we all agree with your right to OC. We do not condone acting like a douche. When you act like a douche everyone you are associated is assumed to be a douche or at bare minimum associates with douches.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
I do like the idea that we have pushed the ball so far that we are not arguing about OCing anymore, and instead we are arguing about OCing long guns. Handguns are pretty much a given aside from a few holdouts.
I say we are in a good place when people are looking at someone walking into a library with a glock on their side and saying “Well, that is fine, at least it isn’t a shotgun!”.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
@settles:
The point is: Define ‘douche’.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
i don’t have an issue with OC (other than from a tactics standpoint). Just assholes.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Define ‘assholes’. Is there a barrel length requirement?
February 16th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["asshole"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the [actions] involved in this case is that.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Which of the actions involved makes anyone into an asshole?
Just carrying a shotgun?
February 16th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I notice the anti oc are dodging the 18-21 question… Why is that… Do they think that adults age 18-21 do not have the right to protect themselves??? Sounds like it… They say no rifle or shotguns so what does that leave??? I know. That leaves the cops…. We all know how useful those guys are… Like I said in the first post. Discrimination…
February 16th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Show me where anyone said that? I’ll wait.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Not one person here in opposition to open carry of a shotgun has framed a coherent argument, they have simply resorted to “its stupid”, “he’s an …..” etc.
Sounds like some of you need to apply for this open position, since you can’t logically or unemotionally define your reasoning:
http://asi.careerhq.org/jobs/3956957/
I mean, you’ve already got the rhetoric portion down!
There was a time in America when carrying a rifle everywhere you went was normal, it should be still. Until it is, you can point your finger all you want at whether open carry or concealed carry slows crime. What slows crime is good people having access to their choice of weapons that can deter criminals. How they carry those weapons is a non issue.
9mm or .45. .40 or .44 Long Colt. .38 or .357 Magnum. Pistol or rifle or shotgun. Regardless, the choice should be the person carrying it, and the rest of us should support that choice.
Gentleman, I may not agree with your choice of carry, but I will defend to the death your right to do so!!
February 16th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
SayUncle,
If you tell an 18-21 year old they can’t carry a long gun, you are telling them they have no right to a firearm for self defense, because they cannot carry a pistol.
So yes, you are saying it!
February 16th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
so thats what the A in BATFE stands for.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Speaking of defining reasoning:
I didn’t say he can’t. I said he probably shouldn’t.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
You are against the kid with the shotgun… He has no other recourse unless you suddenly think a rifle is appropriate… If you are against him you have to be against his right to protect himself seeing he has not other means…. Please enlighten us with how you would defend yourself in this situation???
February 16th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Technically he was carrying a pistol.
The issue is much bigger than guns in the library.
The issue is that the library refuses to follow state law. After being quietly informed that their policy is unlawful, the board still refuses to comply with the laws of this state.
The library is owned by the city and the county, and these local units of government lack the authority to ban firearms.
People have began to open carry on a regular basis at this library because the library refuses to comply with the law.
While i personally do not think that long gun oc at a library is the best choice, i support the right of others to participate in perfectly lawful activities.
Stop hiding your rights in your pockets and under your shirts!
The library will change the way they deal with open carriers. Many municipalities have tried to ignore mcl 123.1102 in the past, and all of them have eventually given in.
“A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms…”
Remember that these open carriers are not just standing up for the ability to carry openly. They are also fighting for your right to possess concealed firearms at the library.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I don’t know that he was concerned about defense. he was there to make a political point.
No, i don’t. that does not follow.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I’ll second John Smiths request:
Please tell us how you would defend yourself as an 18-21 year old who is not allowed to carry a sidearm.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
I agree. But there’s a way to address/challenge that without taking a shotgun into a library.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
SayUnc,
The extension of the political statement IS the right to self defense.
If you don’t make the political statement that NO encumbrance on the right is allowable, then the right will soon be taken. We went down that road several times, and the right survived by the skin of the teeth.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
“I agree. But there’s a way to address/challenge that without taking a shotgun into a library.”
Please define that ability for an 18-21 year old.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
“Which of the actions involved makes anyone into an asshole?”
Carrying a shotgun into a library where there are mothers with their little kids reading books and going about their business. No one in there thought “oh, an open carry advocate, how nice he’s exercising his rights”. What they likely thought was that they had a psycho on their hands and it probably ruined their day.
There is a time and place for everything. You don’t wear shorts and flip flops to a funeral do you?
February 16th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
So instead of having a psycho they end up being the psychos huh dirtysig… So when is terrorizing a legally armed person legal??? When the police BREAK THE LAW and make you leave who is the psycho then… You for being there or the criminals who had you arrested… Filing false complaints is a crime… As for the what if the parents did not know the law… Well lets take a page from the cops… Ignorance is no excuse….
February 16th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@disrtysig:
I hear that same broken and fallacious reasoning from people all the time about carrying a handgun openly. It is simply not the case in my experience, and I see nothing in any articles to support that anyone fled the library or that anyone except a pregnant librarian or her boss was upset.
Assuming that someone is a ‘psycho’ just because they have a lawfully carried firearm is an unreasonable fear.
February 16th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
dirtysig,
REALLY….you want to use that argument, are you sure?
Because moms with little kids are going to react the same to a shotgun, a open carried pistol, or a concealed pistol they happen to see when someone bends over.
And….ever been to funeral in the southwest? I’ve seen lots of shorts, flipflops, etc. at both weddings and funerals!
February 16th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
“Please tell us how you would defend yourself as an 18-21 year old”
Move to a state where an 18 year old can carry a pistol.
However, the message here is clear: gays, get back in the closet because only certain people get to be the arbiters of what is bigotry and what is boorish behavior. You gays better ask for permission before flashing your gay all over public places.
The solution to the library problem is simple: carry your shotguns into the library and then sodomize each other in public. The outpouring of support from the blogs will make you an Internet hero.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Please. People are much more accustom to seeing a handgun openly carried than a long gun. You know that. You can be as absolutist about as you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that people are going to be pissed off when you pull stunts like this. Just like revving your V-8 with a 3 inch exhaust at 1 AM isn’t going to help you keep aftermarket exhausts legal.
Shorts at a funeral? Where I’m from, that would get you thrown out of the funeral home. So you just proved my point for me. Pissing people off who would otherwise be passive or even on your side is not smart.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“people are going to be pissed off when you pull stunts like this.”
Question for you.
Who was pissed off outside of the actors from the library who are busy trying to unlawfully force an illegal policy down people’s throats?
February 16th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
illspirit @ #40 said:
+1.
This is exactly what I was getting at in #12 when I said “Both approaches have merit, and they need to be combined to be most effective.” Thanks, illspirit, for stating it more clearly than I did.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
“Who was pissed off outside of the actors from the library who are busy trying to unlawfully force an illegal policy down people’s throats?”
Dude, if you can’t figure that out on your own, I can’t help you.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Some 18 year-old:
Sort makes the whole 18 YO argument moot. And patrons called the cops. Go hearts and minds!
February 16th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
“Dude, if you can’t figure that out on your own, I can’t help you.”
I figured there was no substance to your argument, nor was there any kind of fact to back it up.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
The librarians or their customers falsely accused the kid and had him removed by officers who enjoy breaking state laws… I do really care if they are pissed off. They and they alone broke the law. The guy with the shotgun and the guy with pistol did nothing that they could be charged with… They merely followed the law as it is written… If they do not know the law ;since when is ignorance an excuse???
February 16th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
All of this boils down to one fact: We want Suzie Soccermom to support us in our fight to preserve gun rights. Carrying a shotgun into churches, libraries, and other places scares the bajeebus out of Susie. Like it or not, Susie’s vote counts, and there are a lot more of them out there than there are of us. Scare her, and she will support taking that right away from you.
You are being counterproductive here. The best way to have your rights taken from you by scared Soccermoms electing antigun politicians is to scare the voters into doing something rash. So you get in someone’s face about your rights under the law and win the argument that day with the librarian. Then, the resulting negative publicity causes the librarian to get a law proposed to restrict that right. Susie Soccermom agrees that they don’t want the scary guns in public, and now you just lost.
Don’t any of you understand how politics work, or do you just enjoy starting shit to get attention?
February 16th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
@Divemedic:
Could you please cite your source about any soccer moms being scared by any of the OCers? I have not yet seen anything to this effect.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Could you please cite your source about any soccer moms being scared by any of the OCers? I have not yet seen anything to this effect.
It was a library patron who originally called 911.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
REB there was such a case. Somehow it ended up in court and the lawbreakers lost…. I think the police arrested her and seized her carry permit of course she did get it back..
February 16th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
So the library patron abused the 911 system in a non emergency situation….That is a misdemeanor. In other words they broke the law… They are criminals… Ignorance of the law is no excuse or so the police say…
February 16th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
These clowns are trying to get OC banned, right? They work for the Brady Bunch, right? Nobody can be that obtuse to think that this actually *helps* gun rights.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I hope you guys are not saying you support criminals and police corruption…
February 16th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
@Breda:
Most OC 911 calls are simply someone calling to ask if it was legal. I would still want to see anyone with a claim that a soccermom was scared by the OCers. It is very possible they were more scared of the security or library response.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I’m not an expert on Michigan law, but I don’t find a state law forbidding 18 – 20 yr olds from possessing handguns.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
My condolences on the shitstorm here Unc…
I live in a very open-carry friendly county in a very open-carry friendly state (Idaho). I moved here from another open-carry friendly state (Arizona). These two very Western states have something in common: normal people really never stopped open carrying. Whether it be cowboys, ranchers, hunters, or whatever so many people carry that it’s the actions of the few criminals that sets them apart, not the fact that they’re carrying. In fact the most heard remark isn’t “omg they have a gun” it’s “what’re you carrying there? I’m carrying this…”
When you let the perception of people carrying guns turn into “only criminals do that” you’ve temporarily lost the fight. Unfortunately in states where open carry is illegal Susie soccermom only sees criminals and criminals on tv carrying openly.
In order to get open carry back, you need to normalize open carry all over again. In order to do that, you need to make as little of a deal of it as possible. In other words, in order to normalize open carry TRY ACTUALLY LOOKING NORMAL. Be polite. Be kind. Be unobtrusive. Be so normal that when people notice the gun they don’t assume you’re a criminal. Do it enough and open carry will be normal again, instead of just being a recognized right.
It’s also your recognized right to be an asshole, but just like being a grandstanding ass while carrying it will not further the long-term plan. If you want to make being a gun-owner and carrier look normal again, start by acting like a normal human by being considerate to those around you.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
I hope you guys are not saying you support criminals and police corruption…
I’m trying to find a way to express my opinion of this little rhetorical tactic without wearing out my welcome with the blog host …
February 16th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Ah, Melody, the voice of reason.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
I think carrying requires you to be 21.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Perhaps, SayUncle, couldn’t find it.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
“All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.” – 1 Corinthians 10:23
Because speed limits are generally revenue streams versus safety related doesn’t mean that the best way of highlighting this is by doing a drifting exhibition in the streets around a school. Because drug laws are and unlawful intrusion upon my personal liberty doesn’t mean that the best way to demonstrate this is by a meth cooking demo at the mall.
The general public’s support is needed to reform stupid gun laws. Giving swaths of the public the perception that gun owners are rude/stupid/dangerous is therefore counterproductive.
February 16th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
I hope you guys are not saying you support criminals and police corruption…
I’m trying to find a way to express my opinion of this little rhetorical tactic without wearing out my welcome with the blog host …
If you condemn the person OBEYING the law then you are embracing the person who breaks the law…
Saying you are against both makes you sound like a politician with no backbone… A really corrupt one…
Pretty clear cut… Think connect the dots…
February 16th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
21 to carry
February 16th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Melody Byrne, couldn’t have said it better!
February 16th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
start by acting like a normal human by being considerate to those around you.
You must really live deeeep in the country for that to work… Go to a major city and test that theory… The “normal” people there will give you the finger for looking at them the wrong way…
By the way a “normal” person does not carry a gun…. Seeing that the majority of “normal” american people do not.
How about the “normal” people start by actually knowing something about the law.. Then the “normal” people may not commit a crime by reporting what is not illegal. Maybe then the “normal” cops will realize that they should not enforce crime…
February 16th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Reading Michigan law, seems it’s 21 for HCP. 18 to OC. So, no need for the shotgun. Just a guy trying to get some attention. Not helping.
February 16th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
The argument that gunowners/carriers should be considerate to others around them by not openly carrying an “intimidating” weapon is akin to the argument that liberal use when it comes to freedom of religion.
If its some “oppressed” religion like Islam, then we have to make concessions, and, heaven forbid we should profile THEM!
But make it something like Mormons or conservative Catholics or conservative Baptists who oppose abortion and they get hammered by that same liberal press!
I’m sorry, but if my ability to express my enumerated rights causes other people to feel uncomfortable, there is something wrong with THEM, not with my actions!!
February 16th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
dirtysig:
“Shorts at a funeral? Where I’m from, that would get you thrown out of the funeral home. So you just proved my point for me. Pissing people off who would otherwise be passive or even on your side is not smart.”
Proving exactly how “tolerant” those people are doesn’t exactly help your point! It’s intolerant people like that who create the problem.
Heck, I live in conservative eastern Washington now, and the last summertime funeral I went to, for a locally well known and respected individual, was outside. There were many people in shorts and polo shirts, (can’t remember flipflops, but I wouldn’t have been surprised.) Of course it was over 95 degrees!
February 16th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
For those 18-21 years old who DO have pistol restrictions in their Local, may I suggest an Ak-47 w/ the underfolder stock? Or perhaps for the old school types, a M-1 Carbine with the paratrooper stock? MUCH easier to carry than a Shotgun into a room full of Sheeple who will panic at the sight of a firearm and call the police (unless there is a CCW person who sees you as a Threat and pulls the trigger after you refuse to “DROP THE WEAPON” when yelled at to do so). But Beware! Don’t be surprised if Bubba the Local Cop says “Freeze! Bang! Bang! Drop the Gun!” I’m sure you can get a nice settlement from the city to pay for your hospital bills when they realize that they violated your Rights (and your Spleen). But if you put on the Big Boy Pants…..; )
February 16th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
1) Where are these rooms full of people who panic over the site of firearms?
2) When has an open carrier been shot by a fellow carrier or by LE?
Starting to sound all Brady in here…
February 16th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
“1) Where are these rooms full of people who panic over the site of firearms?
2) When has an open carrier been shot by a fellow carrier or by LE?
Starting to sound all Brady in here…”
10-4 on that, said the same a while back!!
Interestingly, the only recent case of a legal carrier being shot while the weapon was not in hadn that I can recall was the guy in Vegas carrying in a Costco. He was carrying concealed, someone noticed and called the cops, and they shot first and asked questions later.
Yeah, that concealed stuff works wonders!
Come on guys, the point is that he was exercising a specific enumerated right.
I was misinformed, apparently, because I had seen elsewhere that he was under 21, and had no other option.
Regardless, though, if I am to be polite, and I’m supposed to be aware of others feelings, why shouldn’t I expect the same of them?
It seems that each time he was asked to leave he did so politely, there was never a confrontation.
EVEN THOUGH the people asking him to do so were doing so ILLEGALLY! He chose to preserve the peace without confrontation. Sounds to me like he WAS respecting those around him.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Either we agree with you, or we are all Brady’s? That is reasonable.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
@Divemedic,
No one has said anything of the sort.
February 16th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
If you drew a Venn diagram of Open Carry advocates and attention-whores, how much overlap would there be?
For all of their blustery declarations about rights, Open Carry advocates seem adamant about denying the existence of foolish people among their ranks.
They are equally in denial about the negative repercussions of open carry.
February 16th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Uncle the guy carrying the shotgun explained why he decided to carry a shotgun instead of a pistol in the article you linked. He didn’t want to worry about his winter coat covering his pistol. In Michigan carrying a concealed weapon is a felony good for up to five years in the klink and people have been arrested, charged, and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon even for just carrying a pistol in an IWB holster that was otherwise uncovered.
February 16th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
That second update might be the best laugh I have had on the internets since that Star Wars kid.
February 16th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
And yet, there he is, standing in the article’s photo wearing both a pistol and a winter jacket. Funny, that.
February 16th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Attractive, non-crazy people carrying guns openly = public support. If you aren’t a poster boy to begin with, don’t try to be a poster boy for our cause.
Ugly people with guns makes people nervous.
February 16th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Maybe he decided not to carry the shotgun after the massive shit storm that erupted.
February 16th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
My comments on this subject are at http://ninepoundsledge.blogspot.com/2011/02/quote-of-day_16.html But the short and skinny of it is I am in AZ, home of the AR-15 carrying Wookie Suiters at Presidential Events.
February 16th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
John Smith, February 16th, 2011 at 5:52 pm.
You seem to want to double-down on the name calling.
Consider yourself ignored.
February 17th, 2011 at 12:09 am
To quote St. Paul, “Everything is permitted to me, but not everything is beneficial.”
Should open carry be banned? Of course not. It should be the law of the land.
Dropping F-Bombs in a daycare may be permitted, but it doesn’t help the cause of free speech.
Openly carrying a shotgun in a state where the open carry of pistols makes people nervous may be permitted, but it certainly isn’t beneficial.
February 17th, 2011 at 12:41 am
This issue illustrates a phenomenon with among some fellow hard core “gun rights” people that drives me bat shit crazy. They do not understand that the goal is to win. Unfortunately, in this country you win by getting people who are are sympathetic with you elected to office. The way that seems to get done in our overly divided country these days is to win over the mushy middle of the road voters. This type of shit is a loser with them every time. It only serves to convince the soccer mommies that we are all psychos that will harm their precious children. Wise the hell up, perception is everything. You can wipe your ass with your principals if you don’t have any power. We must convince the “independent” voters that CC, OC people are reasonable, responsible and not extreme. The trend has been going in that direction with the success of CC. Don’t screw it up. Also, please stop citing Heller and Macdonald as if it will always be the law of the land. If we get another term of BO and ,god forbid, he gets another SC appointment they will overturn or so severely limit those precedents that they will be meaningless. Winning the argument and the battle is the only goal.
February 17th, 2011 at 2:06 am
I’m tired of dancing around this. Someone needs to say it.
John Smith- YOU are an asshole. I had an inkling after the gay thread, but you are truly a jackass. Bill- YOU are an asshole, too. Either you two are just arguing out of your asses just to argue, or, if you believe 100% of the bullshit you’re shoveling, you’re both sociopaths that need help.
Who gets to decide, you ask? I get to fucking decide, that who. Uncle’s right, but unlike him, I’ll call you idiots out.
Here’s your first lesson- look up “reductio ad absurdum” and “false dilemma”. You’re going through logical fallacies like a Ferrari goes through gasoline. This kind of jackassery is what gets in the media, and the media is NOT ON YOUR SIDE. Way to push the people who normally wouldn’t care (the middle) into the arms of your adversary.
Second lesson- people watch tv and movies. we know you’re cool and read nothing but Jeff Cooper, but the Middle watches TV. When people open carry long guns, it means “someone is about to get shot.” After seeing this hundreds of times, guess what people think when you carry a long gun to the steakhouse or the library? People don’t like to think they’re about to get shot, so don’t do that, idiot. You know where people open carry long guns? Shitholes like Somalia and Nigeria. Think about that.
As for johnny shotgun- You’re 18, and you want to protect yourself? Carry a shotgun or rifle into a library. When the local violent jilted lover/bandit/general douchetard comes in to case the place, he sees johnny shotgun in the periodicals. He sneaks up behind him and shoots him first. Well played, dumb ass johnny shotgun. You just FAILED.
I LOVE guns and I support the RKBA. Hell, ask people here who have seen me post. I’ll fight the 2nd revolution tomorrow and i generally think cops are douchebags. But i also know an asshole when i see one.
Many others here have said it better, but i’ll reiterate: DON’T BE A DICK. This shit is too serious for your teenage rebellion bullshit.
Unc, if I offended you with this, I’m truly sorry. I’ll buy you a steak or something to make up for it.
February 17th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Perception is *everything*, folks. If you are *perceived* as a threat, you will be labeled as such, and those in positions of power (read: elected officials) who wish to keep their cushy jobs will respond to the bleating of the sheep who are frightened, and pass new law / change old law to make the sheep feel safer by taking away *the right* because the few in the population can’t figure out how to separate *the right* from *the right thing to do*
And therein lies the problem with the actions of those folk who were fully within their rights, according to the letter of the law. They acted as *anarchists*, not as members of a civil society.
And yes, I understand the desire of the rabid OC crowd to make their point, loudly, with a *damn the torpedoes* attitude, but that is just plain wrong where firearms are concerned. The reason is that firearms *are* deadly weapons, period. They are tools used to kill, either for sport, for food, or in war. People see these tools as a threat to their *lives*, and as such they want these tools removed from their midst. Our job, as folks who wish to see the expansion of firearm freedoms, is to build *trust* in the sheeple. The way we do that is to wear the same firearms at our sides as the cops wear, so as to be able to point to it and say that it is no different than the standard issue police gear. Once that is accepted, then we move on to polished chrome 1911′s, Les Baer’s, Kimbers, etc.
Start small and inconspicuous. Then slowly move to small and conspicuous, then to a bit larger…but in the end, unless we are at war on this soil, leave the tools best suited for war (rifles/shotguns) at home, and the tools best suited for personal defense (handguns) on your hip in plain view.
February 17th, 2011 at 10:55 am
It all comes back to Don’t Scare White People.
February 17th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Some things I’ve noticed observing events California.
1) The ONLY progress on gun rights has occurred in the courts.
2) Progress in the courts only occurs when someone’s civil rights are violated by someone in authority. That’s the only time you have standing to sue.
On another note, Joe — or more usually, Josephine — Average does get freaked out…by ANY open carry, by ANY exercise of your gun rights. If you allow that fact to cause you not to exercise those rights…you have freely given them up.
Rosa Parks freaked people out. People were offended. And afraid. Mostly afraid that things were changing, but nonetheless. If 3% of the colonials were fighting the Revolution, a pretty substantial part of the remaining 97% were cursing them for rocking the boat and freaking out the King.
This is a wedge issue. A severe one. But if I claim to support your First Amendment rights, I support your right to call me a honkie. If I claim to support your Second Amendment rights, I’m going to have to do so while acknowledging that not everything you do with them is going to make me happy. I’m just happier that you have the rights at all and I’ll put up with your nonsense.
February 17th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
A lot of people are saying stuff about under 21 can’t carry a handgun and while technically untrue it is effectively true. In Michigan you can purchase a handgun from a private seller and OC it legally. However, to transport it, you must unload and case it, rendering it null. Without a CPL (21 to get CPL) you can’t carry at any of the following:
750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 234d.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
Section (h) there means anywhere licensed to sell alcohol AT ALL. This means gas stations, grocery stores, party stores, restaurants, big box stores like Target, coffee shops that have liqueur flavoring, festivals with temporary alcohol permits, etc, etc
(There is some argument about whether or not the entire property or just the building is the PFZ for liquor licensed establishments. Most believe it’s the building itself, but this may require a court case.)
So, being under 21 makes it nearly impossible to carry a handgun for self defense in Michigan.
February 18th, 2011 at 10:08 am
As a person that open carries exclusively, let me give a little tip to the asshole fringe of those who open carry. You can open carry without being a dick. If you want to open carry a long gun, you plan out a way to do it that is noticeable, without crossing the line into “potential nutjob” territory.
One tactic is to have one person with a long gun slung over their shoulder, carrying some gun-rights related sign. Others around that person open carry handguns, pass around leaflets to people passing by, and act as the mouth pieces. The person most prone to be the type to rant about his rights to people (i.e., the one least capable of being a saleman) is your best choice for the one to hold the sign, since their job is to stand there, hold the sign, and shut the hell up.
You don’t sway people to your side by hiding. But you also don’t accomplish anything by being a dick.
February 18th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Ahh. If only our shotgun carrying friend had a sign. Then he wouldn’t be ‘a dick’.
Now I get it.