Tonight on Gun Nuts radio, we're going to be discussing Open Carry, and it's value (or lack thereof) to the pro-gun shooting and activism community. Joining us on tonight's show will be Meleanie Hain, the PA open carry advocate who had her LTC revoked (and then restored) after OC'ing at her child's soccer game. [More]Well, it's actually last night, but this will let you listen to the archived program.
Per Ahab, via email:
It's amazing how much better she comes across when she's not being filtered by the MSM.What have we been saying about "Authorized Journalists"...?
UPDATE: I've been listening to this as I post. There is one statement she makes I take strong exception to:
Open carry is a right. Concealed carry is a privilege.Why?
11 comments:
Historically, she is somewhat correct as that's how it was viewed at the time, as criminals looked to take advantage by any means.
It's a lot easier to openly carry a rights retention rifle, you know, like they do in Israel.
Hey, with all the cops around here arguing how you SHOULD conceal it I have 10000% no problem with both being fine and free of government intrusion as it should be.
When we had that big blackout (most of the northeast) a few years back I dropped a 45 into my pocket and wandered about on the street talking to neighbors, hanging out and doing that "old-timey" thing of talking to them. Yep, no permit. No wild west. No problems whatsoever, but I was "breaking the law."
I commented on this issue here. Even outside the rights issue, it's simply impractical to separate the two. Even in MA, though I'm sure open carry is frowned upon, if I'm not mistaken, there is no distinction from a legal perspective.
I'm trying to remember what I commented on and removed from that post, Markofafreeman...
The Heller opinion notes that while bear = carry, concealed carry is not constitutionally protected, so, as the cases they cite note, open carry has recevied protection as a right.
David,
The email address I gave you didn't work, so you just used it to send me a message. That was all.
I ain't talkin' LAW, guys, I'm talkin' RIGHTS.
That's right, David. When the law stops us from exercising our RIGHTS then f*** the LAW!
The law is what is decided amongst people, ostensibly to maintain order and society, but as often as not, to actually maintain privilege and advantage for the self-anointed elite.
My rights are what gets them hurt when their law is in violation of my rights. Just law, fine, no problem. But remember this, just law provides no advantage to any person or class of person. It is neutral and applies evenly. Scary when you look at what we have now, ain't it?
When law does provide advantage to one or a group, or a class, it must of necessity violate the rights of others. That is not to be tolerated, and according to the SUPREME law of the land,and every tenet of ethics and morality, and the demands our founders were so careful to set upon parchment and paper to their posterity, we must not only resist and repeal such unjust law through the legal and legislative devices available, but must also disobey those laws. By example, they also advocated the violent disobedience of unjust law. A price paid in blood, that the pragmatists of the day did not share but whose philosophical descendants have enjoyed the benefits of that price paid.
The pragmatists of our day will be no different. And they can quit reading right here, because there is no cure for their ailment. Only the solace of pity from better men.
Rights are several orders of magnitude more important than law. The law's only legitimate purpose is to protect the rights of the citizen, the individual citizen's rights. Not his body, nor his property, but his "rights" to such, and the right to protect what is his without violating what is others'. The "greater good for the greater number" is an obscenity of purpose, for if law and government cannot protect one individual's rights, why the Hell should anyone believe they are capable of protecting multitudes? Or for that matter, why would anyone believe their stated intent of doing so,when they fail so miserably at honoring just one citizen's rights?
David has the right of it. Rights trump law. But only in theory if one is unwilling claim and hold his rights dear.
It was my understanding that, under common law, it was illegal to carry a weapon with intent to menace or harm people. Open carry was the sign of someone more honest, or with nothing to hide, bearing weapons for self-defense. Saloons, for example, would say no concealed weapons while drinking. The root of carry laws on some states. Vermont's verbiage on this matter retains the common law understanding. So, I think she is wrong, concealed and open are rights. But, historically, open carry has been tolerated more. In modern times it's reversed.
In Pennsylvania (her home state) she has a "right" protected by the State Constitution to open carry throughout the State other than "cities of the first class" which means Philadelphia. Legally one cannot conceal a weapon without a concealed carry permit, which does imply that it is a privilege and not a right under the law.
I disagree with the law, but, in the eyes of the law, her statement is correct.
Unfortunately, at the current juncture, only Vermont and Alaska legally see concealed carry as a right and not a privilege.
Welcome back (?) SA. Long time, no see.
David: I asked the same question in the live chat during the show.
It was a very popular show, so not all points could be addressed in one hour.
Post a Comment