Open
By Mitch Berg
Back during the concealed carry debate in Minnesota, I can’t count the number of casually anti-reform people – including one DFL lobbyist/activist type who, while not an elected official, exerts a fairly hefty influence over politics in the Twin Cities – that I talked to who asked “why not require people to carry openly? I mean, why not show people that you’re carrying?”
Which of course shows how screechingly ill-informed most anti-concealed carry activists are; the Minnesota Personal Protection Act allows people to carry openly.
But leaving aside the fact that requiring open carry would have the effect of tipping violent criminals off as to who was armed, most people who have permits don’t carry openly for the simple reason that “Gun” is a pretty powerful message. In a generally-disarmed place like the Twin Cities, openly carrying a gun – completely legally – would be a little like walking around naked; it could be completely innocent, but at the very least it’d tend to dominate the conversation, and at the most could get people pretty upset.
At this year’s annual Gun Rights picnic at the Harriett Bandshell, where dozens of utterly law-abiding citizens stood, ate and kibitzed, many of us carrying permitted firearms, a bystander was heard sputtering into a cell phone demanding a police response. Now, it was a legal picnic full of legal people doing a legal activity, and someone had taken the liberty of telling the police what was going on, so nothing happened. But as a general rule, keeping guns out the way among crowds that might not necessarily be with the good guys is considered tactful. At least.
Just because you can openly carry your firearm doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Now, when you mix guns and politics? The messages are even more pronounced. The symbolism gets through to even SEIU members.
Make no mistake about it; government needs to know that the people do in fact have the final veto, should they get genuinely out of line – suspending the Constitution, abrogating democracy, descending into genuine tyranny. And the government should know that each and every one of us gun-owning citizens is not going to be giving up our Second Amendment rights without a fight – and that fight will be rhetorical and political, God willing, as long as we do have a functioning democracy.
But at a town hall meeting? Oh, I get the idea – but it’s a bad plan. While you may be trying to express “Don’t Tread On Me”, there are those – mostly, but not entirely, from the pants-wetting class – who will take it as “I’m Treading On You”. Which is the last impression one wants to leave people with in a civil society.
So while I get the idea, the fact is that Obama hasn’t suspended the constitution. Oh, he and his Chicago-like administration are playing fast and loose with a lot of our rights, and they need watching.
When when you’re talking town hall meetings – notwithstanding the fact that when congresspeople and the President are involved are usually really just decorative window-dressing when it comes to “participatory democracy” – leave the guns at home. Even if you’re legal (as all the people in the incidents two weeks ago were).
We need to force the President and his dupes to stay on subject.
September 1st, 2009 at 9:30 am
In my view, the open-carry people aren’t attempting to threaten or intimidate. They’re just expressing their freedom as granted to them by the Constitution, much like the way Angryclown likes to wear ass-less chaps during the New York gay pride parade.
September 1st, 2009 at 9:59 am
I’m one of those lefties who predicted mayhem when we passed the current concealed carry law. I thought that a big change like that would cause at least a few people to do something stupid. I am very pleased that I was wrong, and the gun owning community has been very responsible.
Thanks for saying this, Mitch, because the responsibility of the gun owning world has not gone unnoticed by a lot of people who don’t carry guns. It’s worked out OK, even if I don’t like all those signs in store windows. Continuing to be responsible will win over a lot more of us. It’s appreciated.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am
“even if I don’t like all those signs in store windows.”
The gun owning world doesn’t like those signs either.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:14 am
Thx for your comment wabbit. I don’t like those signs either but I respect the owners wishes and take my business elsewhere.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:16 am
wabbitoid,
the gun owning community has ALWAYS been responsible.
As a life member of the NRA I’ve seen their official publications for several decades and they have never advocated criminal behavior as alleged by Handgun Inc (or whatever they call themselves now – they have a tainted brand so they have to keep changing names) and their stalking horses. To anyone who asserts otherwise I offer $100 cash if they can produce an official NRA publication advocating criminal behavior – I’ve never had to pay!
September 1st, 2009 at 10:16 am
MoN: I like the signs, myself. They generate interest in carry permits. And, you’re quite right, the open carry devotees (I’m not one of them) aren’t trying to intimidate people, but educate them.
As to Mitch’s point, I dunno. I’m pretty sure that the folks who freak out over open carry at the meetings wouldn’t be reassured by the knowledge that there are folks who, where it’s legally possible, legally carry discreetly at such meetings.
wabbitoid: Classy admission; thank you.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:23 am
“I am very pleased that I was wrong, and the gun owning community has been very responsible.”
I suggest you parlay that experience and apply it to everything you think you know about conservative politics.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
And Cassidy Nicosia’s recent protest hasn’t changed the terms of the debate?
http://www.nhclog.org/stories/2009/08/23/13/30/cassidy_nicosia
September 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
wabbitoid: Back in 2003 — and before — those of us advocating for reform of Minnesota’s antiquated, bureaucrats-know-best carry laws often cited what we thought of as the best evidence that reform wouldn’t result in mayhem: it hadn’t in the almost three dozen states that, at the time, had similar laws to the one we were supporting.
I don’t mean to put you on the spot unfairly, but I’ve got to ask: when we said that, and you thought otherwise, was it that you
a: thought Minnesotan would behave badly in ways that folks in all those other states hadn’t
b: didn’t believe us about what hadn’t happened in all those other states,
c: weren’t listening to us, and/or
d: had other reasons?
September 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
wabbitoid,
I haven’t seen many folks on the left side of the aisle give a comment like yours… you know, I predicted trouble, but thankfully things seem rather good.
Perhaps I’m not looking or simply missing that part of such comments from others.
So, I gotta give credit to you… and a [Blazing Saddles] laurel and hardy handshake [/Blazing Saddles].
I don’t want that to sound condescending, though. Your attitude is to be commended.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Badda — I follow such things closely; admissions like wabbitoid’s commendable one are very, very rare. And, yup, his attitude is to be commended.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Intellectual honesty is rare on both sides of the aisle. It’s nice to see.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Wabbitoid for DFL Chair!!!!
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:57 am
joelr, from experience I’d guess the reasons are B and C.
That’s why I was so disappointed in the fellow who was carrying openly at the State Fair the other day despite signs asking (telling) him not to and his not-DUI-level-but-over-legal-carry-level BAC.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 am
Stooj: I’m a pro-carry guy, but I’ve got no patience at all for those folks carrying in public with a +.04 BAC, openly or discreetly. Cop chooses to hook him up for CWI, I’ve got no beef. If he wants to booze it up a bit at the Fair, that’s what the Designated Carrier is for. Me, I restrict myself to a single small beer at the Fair; hasn’t ruined my Fair experience, ever. I think there’s an argument that the same limits should apply as for driving — but that’s not what the law is. Folks should obey the law.
That said, I’m also not a fan of the Ag Society attempting to restrict legal carry. Folks should obey the law.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 am
And, yeah, I’d guess b: and c:. There was a LOT of that going around back in 2003.