National CCW?

[Bikenut]

To MarkPA...

Your post above is way too long to respond to point by point so I'll summarize....

Everything you said was carefully worded to sound "reasonable" but the problem is.. the reason we have such a "reasonable" societal perspective that using laws to infringe on rights is "we the people" didn't stand up right from the beginning and resist any and all pseudo logic that says taking away rights makes sense. And taking away rights never did make any sense since laws that do that only affect people who obey the law. Those laws have absolutely NO effect on the common criminal or a criminal government. But those laws DO make it easier for a government to rule over the common man.

And as long as people look at restrictions on rights as being "reasonable".... or find "reasonable" excuses or pseudo logic to defend those restrictions.. then the truth that rights are absolute is lost. And because people allowed themselves to be swayed by the idea that they will be "safe" if there is a law that says a convicted violent felon isn't "allowed" to have a gun while not understanding the felon became a felon because he didn't obey the law in the first place so he surely isn't going to obey some gun law either.

The idea that people can be persuaded to allow themselves to be put in the chains of a government controlling their rights as long as the message is phrased in a way that appears "reasonable" is working very well. Case in point? When it was realized that the word "ObamaCare" was looked upon in a negative way by society the turd that is the national health care scheme underwent a name change and was scrubbed squeaky clean, polished up, and presented as the "Affordable Health Care Act"... but while it is still the same dirty stinking turd just a name change makes a national health care scheme sound........... reasonable.

In my not so humble opinion.... the very instant we start thinking restricting or removing the rights of others is "reasonable" we have become anti rights and pro rights control.

 

[BluesStringer]

Of course, no one wants anyone convicted of a violent felony to buy a gun, or even handle a gun unsupervised.

You should really learn how to limit your comments to your own opinion and stop projecting them to encompass "no one" or "we all" and "of course" as though any deviation from the thought you're expressing is automatically in the realm of the extreme or unreasonable or unworthy of consideration.

It's always been a mystery to me that so many people can acknowledge the fact that the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds, yet they continue to trust the government to run a fair, unbiased and Constitution-compliant justice system. With the advent of fairly easy and quick processing of DNA evidence in the last couple of decades, it has been proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that mistakes in the justice system are notoriously regular, and ruinous of innocent people's lives. Knowing that, why would any fair-minded person believe it the right thing to do to deny a convict's rights after they have paid their debt to society? The initial conviction should always be suspect at this point, not only because of simple mistakes, but because government itself, including cops and prosecutors, have become widely corrupt and criminal.

We've got convicted felons in this country who did nothing more than nurture one of God's plant creations and smoke it. We've had a government for more than 40 years that thought it "constitutional" to wage war on its own citizens over the victimless crime of altering their consciousness in one way or another for recreation, an obvious natural tendency of human beings since the first grape was fermented, the first coffee bean was roasted, the first tobacco was consumed, the first peyote was ingested, the first poppy was distilled, the first marijuana bud was smoked or eaten and on and on and on, all naturally-occurring methods of mind alteration which government thinks it is authorized to allow or disallow naturally-occurring free human beings to partake in. Most felons in this country come out of the war that our government is waging on us, yet somehow, through some inexplicable application of the ultimate pretzel logic, we should support our government's war against us by allowing and supporting its denial of rights to the prisoners of war it culls from our masses. It's utter fratricide, even suicide, as sooner or later any one of us can get caught up in the culling because government is so corrupted as to call into question the legality and/or validity of any punitive actions it dishes out.

So listen up Mark - Please quit saying things like "we all" think one way or another. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect against tyranny. Fighting tyranny is a nasty and bloody business. It requires participation by Patriots who by their very participation become criminals in the eyes of the tyrannical government they're fighting. I support restoring the rights of felons after they've served their time. They are just as likely to have a legitimate need to defend themselves as anyone else, and if they've done their time what is gained other than government control of more people by "legally" stripping them of their rights?

Your premises are flawed on several levels in my estimation, but when you repeatedly say how "we all" or "no one" thinks this or that, it invalidates entirely anything that follows it for me. Not all felons should be such in the first place, and not all that should are incapable of rehabilitation or repentance, and of the ones who are so-incapable, I'm willing to take the chance that I can defend myself against them after they become felons just like I'm prepared to do before.

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

Of course, no one wants anyone convicted of a violent felony to buy a gun, or even handle a gun unsupervised.

This country was founded by a group of violent felons who committed armed treason against their government at the time. If they would have failed in their overthrow of the government, do you not think there would be any chance for them to not be convicted?

 

[MarkPA]

You should really learn how to limit your comments to your own opinion and stop projecting them to encompass "no one" or "we all" and "of course" as though any deviation from the thought you're expressing is automatically in the realm of the extreme or unreasonable or unworthy of consideration.

It's always been a mystery . . . , yet they continue to trust the government to run a fair, unbiased and Constitution-compliant justice system. . . .

We've got convicted felons in this country who did nothing more than nurture one of God's plant creations and smoke it. . . .

So listen up Mark - Please quit saying things like "we all" think one way or another. . . .

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I wrote "VIOLENT criminal", not all criminals. Perhaps that word escaped your notice on first reading. I humbly apologize for including you, and like-minded readers, who give unqualified support to VIOLENT criminals having their 2A rights restored, at least after they are released from prison (perhaps even before.)
Otherwise, I whole-heartedly agree with just about everything else you wrote.
I simply believe that the place to begin the discussion with our fellow voters is NOT with the God-given scared right to the means of a effective self-defense for VIOLENT felons. Rather, I think that the place we OUGHT to BEGIN the discussion is with respect to those you discussed; i.e., NON-violant pot smokers; or, servicemen with a diagnosis of PTSD. We will generate support from our fellow voters if we BEGIN with a discussion of our MOST sympathy-deserved fellows/sisters who have been 2A-disabled by any pretext.
The very most sympathetic case is the poor working single mother defending her children in an inner-city home; or walking home from work at a 7-11. Most people will be willing to entertain the idea that such a sympathetic case has a natural right to the means of an effective self-defense. Don't our veterans have a right? Should that right be stripped from them merely because a VA employee has diagnosed him to have PTSD? Again, a sympathetic case. Shouldn't officers on a military base be armed to protect their uniformed subordinates and civilian employees? Our fellow voters will be able to begin to reason about these arguments.
Then, move on to less sympathetic cases on a basis of fairness and reasonableness. Why does it make sense to dis-arm a peaceful citizen merely because he smoked pot? Why does it make sense to refuse a CCP to a green card holder who wants to protect her children simply because she is not a citizen.
Eventually, we will get to the woman whose ex-husband has an order of protection against her? Are we really comfortable about disarming her? If we aren't altogether comfortable about disarming her, then what if the shoe is on the other foot? Should an ex-husband be deprived of his 2A right for life merely because a (possibly crazy) ex-wife got an order of protection against him decades ago?
Many readers of this forum would like to begin the discussion with the least sympathetic victim of our gun laws. The guy convicted of armed robbery who has done his time. Well, if it was 20 years ago and he hasn't committed a subsequent violent offense, then I'm open to the idea of restoring his 2A rights. I have grave doubts that any arguments favoring his case will gain us any support. Therefore, I'd rather start with the most sympathetic examples and make lots of significant ground.
In any discussion, the LAST argument to be raised, and then in passing, is that the right to arms is a Constitutionally protected right. So, why deprive a peaceful adult her civil right? Once you have painted the case in sympathetic practical terms, then the Constitutional argument nicely caps-off the discussion.
". . . shall not be infringed" is a great bumper-sticker. It is not necessarily the most tactical approach to winning hearts and minds so that their votes will follow.
I'm somewhat disturbed that so many readers here seem to think they grasp the entirety of the legal argument after reading these 4 words; and these alone. It's hard to believe that they have read either Heller or McDonald, to say nothing of the dissents to those decisions or any of the other cases. I have nothing but contempt for the arguments in the dissents. I am appalled! Nevertheless, I am cognizant of the brutal fact that we won both Heller and McDonald by just 1 vote. We are one heartbeat away from a reversal of either or both of these decisions as long as Obama sits in the White House and the Democrats hold the Senate.
Ignorance of the way our legal system works does not advance our cause. We would be much smarter if we understand both the legal system and political system we are up against. The Constitution is solidly in our favor. For the most part, our laws are pretty liberal; and, they can be gradually rolled-back to become more in conformance with the Constitution.
Does no one - absolutely none - of the readers of this forum understand the political aspect of our problem of defending our 2A rights? We have to hold the White House and the Senate; and that requires voters who are 2A friendly. I wonder how many readers who can recite the 2A from memory don't bother to vote. I wonder how many vote without checking the candidates' NRA or GOA ratings. I wonder how many readers' remarks to their neighbors make the neighbors more frightened than sympathetic to supporting the 2A.
If we are to make any progress at all, it is going to be by recovering ground one square yard at at time; just as we lost it one square yard at a time. There is a lot of relatively easy ground available to be fought for; that's where we have to focus our efforts. Recognition of target and backstop are just as important in politics as they are in marksmanship.
Mark

 

[CharlesMorrison]

This country was founded by a group of violent felons who committed armed treason against their government at the time. If they would have failed in their overthrow of the government, do you not think there would be any chance for them to not be convicted?

As I present to the forum once more.....
Link Removed


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[SR9]

I've read a lot of long comments on this thread, but as long as Liberal Progressives Anti-gunners control Congress and State Legislatures there will be no National CCW.
So if everyone would get up off their laurels in 2014 and vote them out, maybe, just maybe something can start moving in a positive direction. You will need to vote for Pro-gun candidates, no matter what Party they are in. If you're going to continue to vote that old party line you've been stuck with, you will still be stuck. You can't continue to vote for the same people and expect to get different outcomes. Stop voting for the old Liberal Democrat and Liberal Republican candidates.
We need new blood. We need to candidates to sign a Pro-Gun Pact, that says they will favor a National CCW.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I wrote "VIOLENT criminal", not all criminals. Perhaps that word escaped your notice on first reading. I humbly apologize for including you, and like-minded readers, who give unqualified support to VIOLENT criminals having their 2A rights restored, at least after they are released from prison (perhaps even before.)
Otherwise, I whole-heartedly agree with just about everything else you wrote.
I simply believe that the place to begin the discussion with our fellow voters is NOT with the God-given scared right to the means of a effective self-defense for VIOLENT felons. Rather, I think that the place we OUGHT to BEGIN the discussion is with respect to those you discussed; i.e., NON-violant pot smokers; or, servicemen with a diagnosis of PTSD. We will generate support from our fellow voters if we BEGIN with a discussion of our MOST sympathy-deserved fellows/sisters who have been 2A-disabled by any pretext.
The very most sympathetic case is the poor working single mother defending her children in an inner-city home; or walking home from work at a 7-11. Most people will be willing to entertain the idea that such a sympathetic case has a natural right to the means of an effective self-defense. Don't our veterans have a right? Should that right be stripped from them merely because a VA employee has diagnosed him to have PTSD? Again, a sympathetic case. Shouldn't officers on a military base be armed to protect their uniformed subordinates and civilian employees? Our fellow voters will be able to begin to reason about these arguments.
Then, move on to less sympathetic cases on a basis of fairness and reasonableness. Why does it make sense to dis-arm a peaceful citizen merely because he smoked pot? Why does it make sense to refuse a CCP to a green card holder who wants to protect her children simply because she is not a citizen.
Eventually, we will get to the woman whose ex-husband has an order of protection against her? Are we really comfortable about disarming her? If we aren't altogether comfortable about disarming her, then what if the shoe is on the other foot? Should an ex-husband be deprived of his 2A right for life merely because a (possibly crazy) ex-wife got an order of protection against him decades ago?
Many readers of this forum would like to begin the discussion with the least sympathetic victim of our gun laws. The guy convicted of armed robbery who has done his time. Well, if it was 20 years ago and he hasn't committed a subsequent violent offense, then I'm open to the idea of restoring his 2A rights. I have grave doubts that any arguments favoring his case will gain us any support. Therefore, I'd rather start with the most sympathetic examples and make lots of significant ground.
In any discussion, the LAST argument to be raised, and then in passing, is that the right to arms is a Constitutionally protected right. So, why deprive a peaceful adult her civil right? Once you have painted the case in sympathetic practical terms, then the Constitutional argument nicely caps-off the discussion.
". . . shall not be infringed" is a great bumper-sticker. It is not necessarily the most tactical approach to winning hearts and minds so that their votes will follow.
I'm somewhat disturbed that so many readers here seem to think they grasp the entirety of the legal argument after reading these 4 words; and these alone. It's hard to believe that they have read either Heller or McDonald, to say nothing of the dissents to those decisions or any of the other cases. I have nothing but contempt for the arguments in the dissents. I am appalled! Nevertheless, I am cognizant of the brutal fact that we won both Heller and McDonald by just 1 vote. We are one heartbeat away from a reversal of either or both of these decisions as long as Obama sits in the White House and the Democrats hold the Senate.
Ignorance of the way our legal system works does not advance our cause. We would be much smarter if we understand both the legal system and political system we are up against. The Constitution is solidly in our favor. For the most part, our laws are pretty liberal; and, they can be gradually rolled-back to become more in conformance with the Constitution.
Does no one - absolutely none - of the readers of this forum understand the political aspect of our problem of defending our 2A rights? We have to hold the White House and the Senate; and that requires voters who are 2A friendly. I wonder how many readers who can recite the 2A from memory don't bother to vote. I wonder how many vote without checking the candidates' NRA or GOA ratings. I wonder how many readers' remarks to their neighbors make the neighbors more frightened than sympathetic to supporting the 2A.
If we are to make any progress at all, it is going to be by recovering ground one square yard at at time; just as we lost it one square yard at a time. There is a lot of relatively easy ground available to be fought for; that's where we have to focus our efforts. Recognition of target and backstop are just as important in politics as they are in marksmanship.
Mark

Why gosh darn it... There you go again with "we"...

After CONSIDERABLE thought on my part, I don't think I've ever seen such a disregard for the Second Amendment in my life.
You sir are a disgrace.
I refuse to crawl on my belly, and beg and plead for the rights I already own.
I owe NOTHING to any Government least of all this POS one.
You do not now, nor will you EVER speak on my behalf concerning MY rights, Period.
Another clue for you....
"We" all live in a Constitutional Republic! We do not live in a democracy.
My rights can never be suppressed by the majority.
So if I were you... I'd stop using all inclusive terms to discuss the Second Amendment and how "we" should proceed to restore it...
It's clear to me that you are going about it the wrong way..
Link Removed

Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[Bikenut]

Ok MarkPA... here is a real world example of where the idea of using "reasonable" methods were put to shame by using "in your face" and "controversial" methods.

Here Link Removed is a place to search all the various discussions about open carry in Michigan... including some of the court cases that have resulted... including a very recent Michigan Supreme Court decision (can be read about here: also http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open...-important-michigan-supreme-court-action.html )

Open carry of firearms, both pistol and long guns, has been legal in Michigan since Michigan became a State in 1837. But that was largely unknown and very few folks openly carried .. except for some hunters during hunting season. And then about 7 or 8 years ago a few guys got together and decided to put open carry to the test.... there was hassle from the police... there were arrests... and there were lawsuits. And the police were retrained... in fact the Michigan State Police put out a bulletin "Legal Update #86

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

to explain to all the police depts in the State that not only was open carry legal but it was ILLEGAL to stop anyone for doing it. But best of all .. there was a multitude of media coverage.. perhaps even a frenzy.. that resulted in... the population of Michigan were educated that open carry, even open carry into schools, by ordinary everyday people was legal.

And how was all that done? By people openly carrying pistols during everyday activities... at council meetings... holding open carry picnics... AND some folks even openly carried rifles and shotguns IN PUBLIC!... a few openly carried pistols and rifles into Michigan's capitol buildings. All of which is legal.

Now the open carry climate in Michigan has changed to where being hassled by the police is very rare because they not only know open carry is legal but open carriers WILL record them and sue them and they WILL win. And the public rarely even blinks an eye when they see open carry now.

So much for trying that "reasonable" approach that folks have been doing for the past few decades... talking nice to people... writing letters... kissing ass... and slowly losing ground. But 7 or 8 years of "in your face" open carry resulted in the public not only becoming aware that open carry is legal but also becoming accustomed to seeing it practiced.

And.. I personally have learned to beware anyone who presents the argument that the best way to make progress is to be "reasonable" because what that person is presenting is an argument of small degrees of capitulation.. and we have had enough of that over those past few decades I've mentioned.

 

[MarkPA]

. . . And taking away rights never did make any sense since laws that do that only affect people who obey the law. Those laws have absolutely NO effect on the common criminal or a criminal government. But those laws DO make it easier for a government to rule over the common man.

. . . . the truth that rights are absolute is lost.

This is fascinating! Can you cite the SCOTUS decisions or legal scholorship that explains just how it is that "rights are absolute"?

I'll wait for you to gather all the citations you can find.

You don't have to confine yourself to those covering the 2A; I'd be delighted to read all the citations you can find that say that "rights" are "absolute" on any other Constitutional right.

If you seem to have some difficulty putting your finger on persuasive citations, may I suggest that the problem is not quite as simple as you have framed it?

You are unquestionably correct that violent felons are unlikely to restrain themselves from violating another gun control law. Just about nothing our legislators could pass is likely to save more than 1 life per year; and 1 per year would be a very optimistic estimate.
You are unquestionably correct that 99.9% of the impact of gun control laws is to burden non-violent keepers and bearers of guns. I have to undergo a background check each time I get a new consulting gig. My ability to earn a living would be instantly devastated by a conviction on a gun law. I want to roll-back every gun control law feasible for my own self-preservation.

Most of all, I want to win the war against tyranny. I want to win that war for my children's and grandchildren's generation; not for my own.

For example, when I patronize my favorite gun store i fill out an ATF form, wait 5 minutes, and walk out the door with any gun on the shelf. Do you know what I'm most troubled by? The fact that that ATF form will remain on-file for 20 years. If-and-WHEN the government wants to confiscate guns they will gather up the FFL's files and key-punch the records of every retail gun-buyer in the country. Then, they will break the frequent buyers on the rack. Our most important work is - in my opinion - to get this retention period rolled-back to 5 or 3 years. Just long enough to serve virtually every ATF trace. Most dealers would keep records on-file a few more years which would cover the 1-in-a-1000 traces that goes back to 4 or 6 years. This very small measure would make a massive roll-up of gun-owners very impractical. Opponents would have a hard time defending the existing 20 year retention period.
Do I think the NICS check does any good? Just about zero good. Does it do some harm; sure it does. The place to focus is to force the ATF to clean-up their act in clearing inditments that are never cleared. Is it a "prior restraint"; absolutely, and, we should quietly make that point in debates. We should argue that a woman should be able to get a waiver from her police department in an emergency. The point is not to change the situation substantively; rather, the rational is to score a point in the argument with non-gun-owners.
In principle, I think the NICS check is highly objectionable. In practice, I think it is mostly a minor inconvenience. There are 2 things we ought to do about NICS. First, expand the existing exception for a NICS check based upon a State-issued CCP/FOID card beyond the 20 or so States that are now exempt. (This is a State-focused effort.) Second, move away from the centralized scheme where the Feds might be keeping a record of FFL inquiries on behalf of identifiable customers. An alternate system called "BIDS" was proposed over 10 years ago which would shield customers' identities from the Feds.
Get this: with a 5 or 3 year ATF form retention period and a dilution of the ability for NICS to accumulate a database of transactions, we get everything we really NEED for the long run. I would LIKE to get rid of the ATF form. I would LIKE to get rid of the NICS check. I DON'T NEED to get rid of them; I can live with them PROVIDED that they don't serve to support a future confiscation program. These efforts are ACHIEVABLE.
The proposal for "Universal Background Checks" are extremely dangerous. They threaten to make every loan of any gun a convict-able offense. There is absolutely no way to structure family exemptions to make the Universal Background Check workable. Yet, the arguments posed by the gun-controllers seem pretty appealing to voters who don't think much about the problems we worry about.
A member of the NJ2AS proposes that anyone should be able to print-out his own NICS-check form that would be good for 90 days. If I meet a guy at the range, a gun-show, etc. I could sell him a gun on his showing of his current NICS-check form. And, if I keep that form, I get a "free-pass" if he should later get into any trouble with this gun I sold him. An interesting idea.
Complement this guy's do-it-yourself NICS-check form with another "free-pass" idea. Suppose I could sell, give, loan or leave a gun with anyone holding a current CCP/FOID card. I.e., a CCP/FOID is effectively like a driver's license. I am free to loan you my car if you have a current driver's license; so, why shouldn't I be able to sell/give/loan/leave-with-you a gun if you have a CCP/FOID?
These two ideas combined would just about completely answer all the alleged objectives of any "Universal Background Check" system with-OUT creating a paper trail of ANY non-retail gun trading (or loaning) activities.
Lots of readers will complain to high heaven about the intrusion of any government agency in anything having to do with guns. In principle, I agree. In practice, I want to win the war.
This year I moved to PA. It took me many hours of effort (mostly getting my Social Security Card reissued) to get my Drivers License. It took me 15 minutes to get my CCP (LTCF in PA). (The lady in the Sheriff's office was a few minutes late to work that morning.) Basically, a CCP/FOID card is nothing more than a card that says you passed the NICS check. This is not bad; on balance, I think it's pretty good. I can show my neighbor that I have a CCP just like I have a driver's license. If that makes my neighbor feel more comfortable then he is more likely to vote for gun-rights candidates or less likely to vote for gun-control candidates.
In PA, we are lucky in that we don't have a training requirement. Other States have a requirement for 8 or 16, maybe more hours of training. In principle, I'm dead-set against a training-requirement to exercise a right. As a POLITICAL matter, I wouldn't complain too much. I'd rather argue that a test would be fine - provided of course, that the test were written by the NRA or a State's gun-club association.
If NJ issued a CCP upon completion of a 72-hour training program I'd ask: Where do I sign-up? Breaking down the Won't-Issue States into Shall-Issue States is far far more important than standing in the way of a training requirement. If NJ would start with a 72-hour training requirement it could be worked-down to 48-hours, then 24-hours and finally 16-hours.
Most readers will complain that I am soft-on-regulation. Believe me, I'm as pissed-off as the rest of you about regulation; probably more so. I'm not interested in losing the war by standing for my principles. I'm interested in winning the war by playing the dirty game of politics as successfully as our opponents have played that game against us. They have taken our rights away one-chip-at-a-time. If we are to win this war, we will retake this ground by restoring our rights one-chip-at-a-time.
The battlefield is political. It is to be fought and won/lost at the ballot box. All the pontificating about "absolute" "right" or "infringe" will get you applause and free beers, but it won't win elections, it won't win legislators, it won't win Presidents/Governors. It certainly won't impress judges.
Mark

 

[mwhals]

I don't want the Federal government involved. Leave the power with the states and reciprocity of CCW permits.


Sent from my iPhone using Link Removed

 

[Bikenut]

This is fascinating! Can you cite the SCOTUS decisions or legal scholorship that explains just how it is that "rights are absolute"?

I'll wait for you to gather all the citations you can find.
Mark

And that is your problem... you are looking to those who "reasonably interpret" what rights are instead of understanding that rights are absolute.

Want a "citation"?

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And it is that "shall not be infringed" part that put all the court decisions and all the laws into the realm of............. "infringements" upon a right that is absolute.

Sorry... but, in my opinion, you have only proven that your arguments are not in favor of the right to bear arms but are attempts to shroud a pro gun control perspective in "reasonable" psuedo logic.

Also, in my opinion, you got nothing except an overly developed belief that "reasonable" restrictions are............... "reasonable".

 

[vernsimpson]

I believe in the 2A! The 2A should be all we need to carry. That being said I also believe that there are Americans who I would trust with a rubber band and a paper clip! I do NOT trust the Federal Government to regulate and issue a CCL. The Feds seem to inject things into the law and the US Constitution that are not there. Look how many times they say "Separation of Church and State" is in the US Constitution. If a 2A challenge ever gets to SCOTUS we could lose BIG! After Roberts twisted and turned obummercare to fit into a square hole who knows what he would do!

 

[BluesStringer]

Does no one - absolutely none - of the readers of this forum understand the political aspect of our problem of defending our 2A rights?

First off, you've had exactly five posters, myself included, reply directly to something(s) you said in this thread. To extrapolate from those five posters the collective sociopolitical depth of understanding of the entire 54,000+ members of the board is beyond impertinence. To think that three or four posts of yours should stand as evidence of your superior understanding of same is beyond arrogance.

Secondly, like I said before, the 2A and the Constitution as-written and as-intended are dead. The only vestiges left of them are in the hearts of Patriots. If you think there's a political solution to that circumstance that "we all" should understand because you say it's true, you are severely lacking understanding about what it means to be free - free to think for one's self, free to act in one's own best interests, and free to stand in opposition to the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth.

We have to hold the White House...

That would be the White House that is occupied now by an illegal alien that most Americans believe was "elected" legally, right?

and the Senate;

And that would be the Senate that is "elected" by an illegally bastardized and completely usurped version of the Constitution that empowers them, right? In case you missed it, I actually give links to back up my assertions.

After the last grievance listed in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson penned these words:

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Some of the specifics in the list of grievances are different, but that bottom line is the same. In that quotation where it speaks of petitioning for redress at every stage of these oppressions, I know exactly how Jefferson felt. I took the following picture on March 20, 2010 outside the Capitol Building while I and 40,000+ other Patriots who still believed in the political process gathered to actively oppose the passage of ObamaCare:

That was my last of at least five trips to DC over the previous seven or eight years, and several trips throughout the rest of the country in support or opposition to legislation. At every turn, concerning every subject from abortion to the 2nd Amendment to the FairTax to ObamaCare, the Will of The People was proven to be nothing more than a long-dead cliché.

Still, can I be forgiven for scoffing at those who would argue vociferously that *voting* is the solution to our political challenges? I mean, where were you on March 20, 2010, Mark? I know where I was, and though it did no more good than voting has done to restore the Constitution, it took a helluva lot more effort and expense, and it should qualify me to be exempt from lectures by those whose only suggestion is "get out the vote" and "make our neighbors sympathetic" to our 2A causes etc.

and that requires voters who are 2A friendly. I wonder how many readers who can recite the 2A from memory don't bother to vote.

Voting under the auspices of a usurped Constitution? Voting for Senators who would never allow the repair of the Constitution that was broken by the illegal insertion of the 17th Amendment because to allow it would diminish most of the power they gained by inserting it in the first place? Voting to give the imprimatur of legitimacy to the tyrants who would enslave you seems rather a symptom of an Americanized kind of Stockholm Syndrome than pursuing a viable "political solution."

I vote for freedom, and freedom cannot come from voting in more of the tyrants who enslave you. Wonder all you want how someone can so thoroughly understand and support the original 2A but still refuse to vote. Even if you disagree with my view that all elections these days are illegitimate, to be unable to imagine such a circumstance puts one completely out of touch with the valid rationale for our founding, and displays a lack of understanding about the evil that can drive men to impose despotism over other men.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

Another place to go to and learn about the advances that open carry, you know... that terrible "in your face" and what some folks consider to be "unreasonable" exercising of the right to bear arms.... has made in Michigan:

Michigan Open Carry, Inc. | Nothing to hide!

and their forum........

Michigan Open Carry, Inc. - Index

 

[MarkPA]

Ok MarkPA... here is a real world example of where the idea of using "reasonable" methods were put to shame by using "in your face" and "controversial" methods. . . .
Open carry of firearms, both pistol and long guns, has been legal in Michigan since Michigan became a State in 1837. . . . a few guys got together and decided to put open carry to the test.... there was hassle from the police... there were arrests... and there were lawsuits. And the police were retrained... in fact the Michigan State Police put out a bulletin "Legal Update #86
. . .
to explain to all the police depts in the State that not only was open carry legal but it was ILLEGAL to stop anyone for doing it. But best of all .. there was a multitude of media coverage.. perhaps even a frenzy.. that resulted in... the population of Michigan were educated that open carry, even open carry into schools, by ordinary everyday people was legal.

And how was all that done? By people openly carrying pistols during everyday activities... at council meetings... holding open carry picnics... AND some folks even openly carried rifles and shotguns IN PUBLIC!... a few openly carried pistols and rifles into Michigan's capitol buildings. All of which is legal.
. . . So much for trying that "reasonable" approach that folks have been doing for the past few decades... talking nice to people... writing letters... kissing ass... and slowly losing ground. But 7 or 8 years of "in your face" open carry resulted in the public not only becoming aware that open carry is legal but also becoming accustomed to seeing it practiced.

And.. I personally have learned to beware anyone who presents the argument that the best way to make progress is to be "reasonable" because what that person is presenting is an argument of small degrees of capitulation.. and we have had enough of that over those past few decades I've mentioned.

Wonderful example. First, you started in a State where the laws were on your side. I think that is important; i.e., to stay within the law. (An interesting angle on this is to carry black-power guns in States where they are defined as NOT "firearms". The Public can't tell if a revolver is black-powder or smokeless-powder).

You wrote about "holding open carry picnics". Such ideas strike me as a great place to begin. The Texans who gathered at the Alamo was another outstanding example. 4'th of July parades, Memorial Day parades. These are baby-steps. They can be followed by a monthly meeting of the rod-and-gun club carrying holstered pistols at a restaraunt. Eventually, you get to city council meetings and schools. And, all the way, you are making small incremental steps. Always within the law. Initially with notice to the cops. Preferably, working first in cities/counties with a sympathetic Chief/Sheriff. Once the local newspapers are reporting these activities peaceably taking place in one jurisdiction then the opponents in adjacent jurisdictions are going to hesitate to make a stink when the activities are taking place where they aren't welcome.
Our objective should be to cultivate a sense of normalcy in the greater community first, then enlarge that sense of normalcy beyond the most receptive and into the less receptive.
Sounds like the guys in Michigan pulled this off pretty successfully. Maybe they were just lucky; or, maybe the leaders took some care to improve the likelihood of success. I don't know. More info on strategy would be informative.

Sooner-or-later, an open-carry movement will begin to eye jurisdictions where the local constabulary won't be receptive. Then, carefully, open-carry in that unwelcome jurisdiction in the least intrusive way possible. The hostile constabulary will have to call your bluff.

When done IN-delicately, I'm afraid that open-carry could piss-off many voters for each voter who respects us for standing up for our rights. That would be COUNTER-productive. As I mentioned elsewhere, we have 4 Senators with NRA/GOA ratings below C from Constitutional-carry States. Constitutional-carry is far from the holy-grail of our cause. If we looked to a Senate of 60 solidly A and above ratings from NRA/GOA that would be a goal to strive for.

Try to think strategically. Let's take back our rights bit-by-bit. Let's fight-like-hell before giving-up any ground. How do get Shall-Issue in the Won't-Issue States? Do you get it by insisting on Constitutional-carry or nothing-at-all? Or, do you trade-off something you would rather not give-away in order to get the win you need? I don't like the idea of paying $25 for my CCP; but I'd rather pay that fee rather than not have a CCP at all. I don't like the idea of a training requirement; but, I pay for training voluntarily. Those Shall-Issue States that settled for a training requirement and a high fee got Shall-Issue. How long would they have had to wait to get Shall-Issue if they weren't willing to compromise on training?

I'm not at all advocating capitulating bit-by-bit; I'm advocating re-gaining ground bit-by-bit. I'm advocating getting voters to gradually come-around and see things our way; I discourage scaring the pants off as many voters as possible so they vote for gun-control candidates. We want to SEEM to be reasonable while fighting-like-hell against every real threat. The 20-year ATF form retention period is a real threat. Record-keeping on private transfers is a real threat. Gun cosmetics and mechanics are a real threat. Every new State that becomes Shall-Issue is a victory no matter that it has a fee or training requirement. A new State that refuses to become Shall-Issue because we won't give-in on Constitutional-carry is not a victory; it's a lost opportunity.
Mark

 

[Firefighterchen]

The 2nd amendment is not needed, a pulse should be proof enough.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

Wonderful example. First, you started in a State where the laws were on your side. I think that is important; i.e., to stay within the law. (An interesting angle on this is to carry black-power guns in States where they are defined as NOT "firearms". The Public can't tell if a revolver is black-powder or smokeless-powder).

You wrote about "holding open carry picnics". Such ideas strike me as a great place to begin. The Texans who gathered at the Alamo was another outstanding example. 4'th of July parades, Memorial Day parades. These are baby-steps. They can be followed by a monthly meeting of the rod-and-gun club carrying holstered pistols at a restaraunt. Eventually, you get to city council meetings and schools. And, all the way, you are making small incremental steps. Always within the law. Initially with notice to the cops. Preferably, working first in cities/counties with a sympathetic Chief/Sheriff.

In reference to the part of your post I put in bold...
Incorrect... one does not ask permission from the police by notifying them of the intent to legally exercise the right to bear arms. And no one cared if the cities/counties/town/townships were "sympathetic" to open carry when folks open carried pistols or even long guns singly or at open carry events. You see.... unlike some folks who think it is "reasonable" to oh so politely and be oh so careful to not "offend" the open carriers in Michigan think it is "reasonable" to be left alone and not hassled when they are engaged in exercising their rights in a legal manner. And there are some open carriers, myself included, who don't shive a git who doesn't like it... cops, other people, or people who are so wrapped up in kissing the ass of authority they are afraid to do anything that doesn't seem "reasonable".

By the way... the funny thing is... I think it is perfectly "reasonable" for people to quit trying to be "reasonable" about their rights when dealing with "unreasonable" people who think rights are things that can be controlled as long as the controls are "reasonable". And who decrees what is "reasonable"? Why the government of course! And I think it is "unreasonable" to believe the government has any authority to control the exercising of rights.

Once the local newspapers are reporting these activities peaceably taking place in one jurisdiction then the opponents in adjacent jurisdictions are going to hesitate to make a stink when the activities are taking place where they aren't welcome.
Our objective should be to cultivate a sense of normalcy in the greater community first, then enlarge that sense of normalcy beyond the most receptive and into the less receptive.
Sounds like the guys in Michigan pulled this off pretty successfully. Maybe they were just lucky; or, maybe the leaders took some care to improve the likelihood of success. I don't know. More info on strategy would be informative.

About the part of your post above that I put in bold...
Or maybe the folks in Michigan just decided that being "reasonable" just wasn't cutting it and took a more direct, or what some might consider an "unreasonable", route... and while the "reasonable" route has resulted in decades of ever increasing slow incremental loss of rights the "unreasonable" route produced an educated populace and that very important Michigan Supreme Court decision I mentioned in a previous post... in just 7or 8 years.

Sooner-or-later, an open-carry movement will begin to eye jurisdictions where the local constabulary won't be receptive. Then, carefully, open-carry in that unwelcome jurisdiction in the least intrusive way possible. The hostile constabulary will have to call your bluff.

First of all... no one who has been open carrying was "bluffing". Nor did we carefully choose which jurisdictions we would go to next. We just went where we were free to go and we open carried where it was legal to do so. And we recorded incidents where there was hassles, intimidation, and illegal arrests and sued the people who did that stuff. And we won. We didn't kitty foot around like you are talking. We got it done.

When done IN-delicately, I'm afraid that open-carry could piss-off many voters for each voter who respects us for standing up for our rights. That would be COUNTER-productive. As I mentioned elsewhere, we have 4 Senators with NRA/GOA ratings below C from Constitutional-carry States. Constitutional-carry is far from the holy-grail of our cause. If we looked to a Senate of 60 solidly A and above ratings from NRA/GOA that would be a goal to strive for.

Horse hockey!! Constitutional carry IS the Holy Grail! But you are mistaken if you think it should be addressed on the Federal level. It has to be done State by State... and it HAS BEEN DONE:

Constitutional Carry Index

Vermont has had Constitutional Carry since the nation's founding in 1791--
they never enacted any law banning the right to discreetly bear arms.

Montana enacted Constitutional Carry in 1991, for all areas
outside city limits (99.4% of the state), and is working on the rest.

Alaska enacted Constitutional Carry in 2003.

Texas enacted Constitutional Carry "light" in 2007
as the "Motorist Protection Act," freeing people to carry in their vehicles,
and to and from their vehicles and their homes, land or business.

Arizona got full Constitutional Carry in 2010,
and the sky has not fallen, despite desperate fears to the contrary.

Wyoming enacted Constitutional Carry for residents in 2011.

Is your state next? Breathe the air of freedom!
Make it so:

Kindly take note of the dates of when Constitutional Carry was enacted in some of those State above.

Try to think strategically. Let's take back our rights bit-by-bit. Let's fight-like-hell before giving-up any ground. How do get Shall-Issue in the Won't-Issue States? Do you get it by insisting on Constitutional-carry or nothing-at-all? Or, do you trade-off something you would rather not give-away in order to get the win you need? I don't like the idea of paying $25 for my CCP; but I'd rather pay that fee rather than not have a CCP at all. I don't like the idea of a training requirement; but, I pay for training voluntarily. Those Shall-Issue States that settled for a training requirement and a high fee got Shall-Issue. How long would they have had to wait to get Shall-Issue if they weren't willing to compromise on training?

I'm not at all advocating capitulating bit-by-bit; I'm advocating re-gaining ground bit-by-bit. I'm advocating getting voters to gradually come-around and see things our way; I discourage scaring the pants off as many voters as possible so they vote for gun-control candidates. We want to SEEM to be reasonable while fighting-like-hell against every real threat. The 20-year ATF form retention period is a real threat. Record-keeping on private transfers is a real threat. Gun cosmetics and mechanics are a real threat. Every new State that becomes Shall-Issue is a victory no matter that it has a fee or training requirement. A new State that refuses to become Shall-Issue because we won't give-in on Constitutional-carry is not a victory; it's a lost opportunity.
Mark

Look at the big picture... we have decades of anti gun crap on the books all because the gun owning/carrying citizenry tried to be "reasonable" and tried to work within the framework that they have been told (by those in authority) is "reasonable". Even to the point where folks no longer looked to their rights to know what rights they have but looked to those in authority to be told what their rights really should be interpreted to be. Didn't work now did it? So why would anyone think more of the same is going to produce something different?

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-
When done IN-delicately, I'm afraid that open-carry could piss-off many voters

And there is that old... "I don't like how you guys are doing it because I'm afraid you will cause me to lose more of MY rights." perspective so often seen from those who want to tell everyone else how to fight for rights.
-snip-
Try to think strategically. Let's take back our rights bit-by-bit. Let's fight-like-hell before giving-up any ground. How do get Shall-Issue in the Won't-Issue States? Do you get it by insisting on Constitutional-carry or nothing-at-all? Or, do you trade-off something you would rather not give-away in order to get the win you need? I don't like the idea of paying $25 for my CCP; but I'd rather pay that fee rather than not have a CCP at all.

And the way to not have to pay that $25 fee for a carry permit is to go to Constitutional Carry where no permits are required. Rather simple really.

I don't like the idea of a training requirement; but, I pay for training voluntarily. Those Shall-Issue States that settled for a training requirement and a high fee got Shall-Issue. How long would they have had to wait to get Shall-Issue if they weren't willing to compromise on training?

I'm not at all advocating capitulating bit-by-bit;

Yes you are advocating capitulating... please refer to the part of your post above I put in bold because settling for "shall issue" of the infringement of a government controlled permission slip called a carry permit IS CAPITULATING and is selling out the right to bear arms for the privilege of having government permission.

I'm advocating re-gaining ground bit-by-bit. I'm advocating getting voters to gradually come-around and see things our way; I discourage scaring the pants off as many voters as possible so they vote for gun-control candidates. We want to SEEM to be reasonable while fighting-like-hell against every real threat. The 20-year ATF form retention period is a real threat. Record-keeping on private transfers is a real threat. Gun cosmetics and mechanics are a real threat. Every new State that becomes Shall-Issue is a victory no matter that it has a fee or training requirement. A new State that refuses to become Shall-Issue because we won't give-in on Constitutional-carry is not a victory; it's a lost opportunity.
Mark

I get it now... what you are saying... and have been saying all along has finally come out into the light of day:

-snip-
When done IN-delicately, I'm afraid that open-carry could piss-off many voters
-snip-

Please take note of the part of the above I put in bold with extra emphasis on the part I also underlined that explains your attitude and perspective.

You are "afraid" open carry will result in voters turning against the right to bear arms even though I explained how the recent History of people IN-delicately fighting for the right to bear arms in Michigan for the past 7 or 8 years resulted in so many positive advances. And one of those advances is that open carry didn't piss off very many voters. On the contrary... the media frenzied circus ended up informing darn near every voter in the entire State that they too can openly carry a gun... and that (although there are some laws concerning where it is illegal to possess a firearm) no permit is needed to legally open carry in Michigan.

So much for being afraid of pissing off voters.

 

[MarkPA]

"And one of those advances is that open carry didn't piss off very many voters. On the contrary... the media frenzied circus ended up informing darn near every voter in the entire State that they too can openly carry a gun... and that (although there are some laws concerning where it is illegal to possess a firearm) no permit is needed to legally open carry in Michigan."

If your characterization of the outcome in Michigan is correct (and I'm prepared to believe it is) then you might be correct on the effectiveness of the Open-Carry movement. Perhaps I've been too skeptical. I.e., that an aggressive open-carry movement resulted in NO backlash from voters.
I take it that "no permit is needed to legally open carry in Michigan" implies that concealed-carry requires a permit. I see the fee is $105 in Michigan. Is this not a compromise? You hold Michigan to be a victory. So do I.
In a debate with a non-gun owner I would argue that Michigan is a fine example. Open-carry with no-permit-required is in PERFECT accordance with the Constitution. Everyone can see someone open-carrying a gun. If he seems to be misbehaving the cops could be called. Guess-what; that just doesn't seem to happen! No problem with no-permit-required open-carry.
Now, then, should some other State liberalize it's laws on carry? Next step could be - like Michigan - a Shall-Issue law for CONCEALED-carry. Admittedly, if a guy is CONCEALED-carrying no one can see that he has a gun. No one can apprehend a danger of his hypothetical behavior in the context of his (CONCEALED) gun. So, let's let our girlfriends and wives and elderly (and, by the way, all the rest of us) CONCEALED-carry with a card that simply shows that we have been background-checked.
A CCP system would defuse most of the controversy around Stop-&-Frisk. Don't you agree, fellow-citizen, that Stop-&-Frisk is highly intrusive and offensive? Don't you agree that it flies in the face of 4A right to be free from unreasonable search? Well, then, in nearly all such Stop-&-Frisk incidents could be politely-resolved as follows:
Constable: "Is that a gun in your pocket?"
Citizen; "As a matter of fact,
- Yes it is; or,
- No it is NOT
In any case, I'm happy to see you!
Would you care to see my CCP?"
Constable: "No thank you"; or
"Yes, please"
I'm NOT particularly interested in whether such a scenario (admittedly, rather fanciful, mostly useful for rhetorical purposes) would actually pan-out if some jurisdiction - e.g., NYC adopted a Shall-Issue law. Rather, I AM interested in the prospect that such an argument might be deemed reasonable by my fellow citizens who are offended by Stop-&-Frisk. If they deemed it reasonable, perhaps they would see fit to support a law-change to Shall-Issue (from Won't-Issue).
Here in PA we pay something like $20 (USA Carry says $19 plus depending on County) for a permit that is required for EITHER Concealed or Open carry. Michigan citizens might be satisfied with $0 for Open-Carry; $105 for Concealed-Carry. Pennsylvanians mighty be almost as satisfied with $20 for either Open-/Concealed-carry. Who is better off?
I'll agree with you. Michigan is better because it honors the 2A permitting Open-Carry with NO fee, NO card. If I could get that in PA I'd go for it! I wouldn't mind paying an extra $85 to Concealed-carry if I could get the 2A principle of Open-carry without infringement in the form of a fee. I take it that where you and I might disagree is that you would have me fight for NO-permit Open Carry. I'm not as committed as you in the principle of FREE open-carry.
I see that you remark "(although there are some laws concerning where it is illegal to possess a firearm)". For purposes of illustration, I'll assume you can't open-carry in a Michigan courtroom. Should you devote your efforts to fighting for the absolute natural-right to open-carry in a Michigan courtroom? Or, are you satisfied with the Carry-law you live with in Michigan? You are allowed to open-carry anywhere you like - except a court-room - but your neighbor, who wants to carry a pistol in her purse, must pay $105. Aren't you making something of a compromise that suits you personally with a bit less than full-throated defense of the woman who might prefer to concealed-carry or the lawyer who can't carry to work because she works in a court-room?
I have my own personal preference based on where I live. I'm a couple of miles across the river from NJ. The political landscape there is bleak. I'm trying to figure out how to get any sort of Shall-Issue in NJ (and the 9 other Won't-Issue States plus DC). Do you have any suggestions for how my NJ friends and I could get NJ voters to support the 2A? NJ doesn't even have a State constitutional protection for arms. NJ makes it ILLEGAL to carry a gun - unloaded and locked in your trunk - unless you are going directly to-/from- a range or moving from one house to another.
My faith in our institutions of government is almost as low as yours; not as low as yours, but, I'm afraid I'm pretty close. The question facing those of us who are disaffected is what we do about it.
I take it that some readers of this forum want to concentrate on Constitutional-Carry, at least for Open-Carry. I happen to have different priorities. I'd rather do anything possible to get Shall-Issue in the remaining 10 Won't-Issue States. For example, I see Illinois a major victory whereas a Constitutional-Carry advocate would not attach so much significance to Illinois.
I take Heller and McDonald to be major victories; but, they did not step outside the threshold of the home; so, I could see how a Constitutional-Carry advocate would not attach so much significance to Illinois.
I'd advocate the roll-back of the 20-year retention period of ATF sales records to 5 or 3 years. I'd advocate converting NICS to a BIDS system (or some intermediate hybrid where the Feds compile the records of disabling events but an organization such as the NRA fields the FFL inquiries.) I can see how the Constitutional-Carry advocate would not settle for any ATF sales record whatsoever; no background-check whatsoever.
It seems as though you and I do agree that it is critical to keep gun regulation out of the Federal government and to insist that gun regulation is purely a States-Rights issue. And, in each State, the less-the-better. How do we approach that goal?
I'm afraid that open-carry in Alaska, Arizona, Michigan and Vermont and a few other States will have little impact in Washington DC. I see that Michigan's 2 Senators both have F ratings from both NRA and GOA; and such is the case for Vermont. Alaska and Arizona have 1 C-or-below Senator. If we are to achieve the goal of keeping the Feds out of gun-control we need to convert these gun-freedom States into States who will elect gun-rights Senators. Is Constitutional-Carry really demonstrably effective in the election process?
I've read that some campus-carry advocates have practiced an "empty-holster" form of in-your-face advocacy. Moreover, their free-speach rights have been upheld by the courts. A gun rights advocate in NJ would be arrested if he tried to open-carry. But, what if a bunch of empty-holster advocates window-shopped at NJ malls after the recent incident where some nut fired a rifle in a NJ mall? That would be perfectly legal, and would send a message to NJ voters. Certainly a small step - very very small.
If-as-and-WHEN the political situation in America deteriorates beyond hope of redemption by debate, those of us who value our rights will need as many sympathizers as possible. People who have cultivated a heathy skepticism for the benevolence-of-government; then, an opposition to government-intervention; and, finally an acceptance of personal responsibility for the preservation of liberty.
My hope is that ObamaCare will inspire this healthy skepticism. Then, concern for SWAT teams conducting No-Knock raids on paper-thin pot pretexts will inspire opposition to government-intervention. And, finally, concern for personal security will lead naturally to a concern for self-defense. I can imagine how ObamaCare and SWAT-team No-Knock raids are the soft-underbelly of fascism. These laws and 4A-interpretations will be seen by a majority as intolerable encroachments on their natural-rights. Here, we can win friends for liberty.
Meanwhile, on the 2A front, we pick our targets. We agree on targeting States. All politics are local. As you quite rightly point out, there are several States with Constitutional-Carry or Constitutional-Carry-Lite. I can see how normalizing the regular sight of a peaceable civilian going about his business with a gun in his holster will gradually lower the adverse reaction of hoplophobes in that State. How could we get a Shall-Issue State's legislature to adopt Constitutional-Open-Carry? Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction? Would that take political action?
Here is a suggestion to this end. Promote open-carry picnics (open-carry club meetings, open-carry rallies) in Shall-Issue States. Do them tastefully. Invite the cops to "card" the participants who (initially) are all CCP holders. When the cops get tired of playing this game (because no one is found to be NON-card-carrying) then do it again. This time, salt the population with a fine upstanding citizen who does not happen to have a CCP card. Maybe he is carrying a black-powder revolver in a jurisdiction where it is NOT defined to be a firearm. Or, maybe he is carrying a plausible replica gun. The cops will get tired of playing this game in due course. You get the picture. Explain to the media that the village square (picnic grounds, restaraunt, etc.) did not turn into a blood-bath because people openly-carrying guns (or black-powder revolvers or replica guns) gathered in public. Nor, by the way, was the CCP card an important constraint on those among them who were legally carrying modern guns.
Now, in such a hypothetical Shall-Issue State we may succeed/or-not in persuading the Legislature to relax their carry law by making Open-Carry without a CCP legal. We might very well succeed in getting non-gun-voters in that State to adopt a more relaxed view about guns-in-public. While conducting such a campaign we might also campaign for rolling-back the fee for the CCP from $105 to $75 or $55. If PA can issue its CCP ("LTCF") for only $20, why can't Michigan do so for $75 or $55? How about waiving the fee for the elderly, the disabled, the working poor, the unemployed. How about reducing a training requirement (in States where applicable) from 16 hours to 8 hours? How about removing drug-use disabling criteria from the State law? We might succeed in chipping away on the restrictions in a given State's Shall-Issue State's law even if we can't quite convince the legislature to give its citizens Constitutional-Open-Carry. The more CCP holders we can add to each State the more converts to the 2A we will have.
The task will be much more difficult in Won't-Issue States. Without a Shall-Issue law it's very difficult to find a fissure to work into. The empty holster technique might be one such method. Perhaps there are others. We have to use our collective imaginations to gain every insight on how to apply leverage. With the hearts and minds of the voters, the votes will follow, the politicians will follow (kicking and screaming, but they will follow).
If we can't get the hearts and minds of the voters to follow us to the ballot box how do we imagine we will get them to join us at the barricades - with pitchforks?
In my view, on the 2A, we are in remarkably good shape relative to most of the rest of the world. With Heller and McDonald we have a clear-cut individual right, at least in the home. We are just one step away from an individual-right OUTSIDE the home. We ALREADY HAVE OUTSIDE-the-home in the Federal Circuit covering Illinois; that is huge. We don't have it in the Eastern Circuits covering most of the Won't-Issue States. What would it take to get SCOTUS to accept a case on the 2A-OUTSIDE-the-home? I wish I knew.
Personal security is an issue that people can relate to. I think we can get women and the elderly to pay attention to personal security; and, therefore, to the natural right to an effective means of self-defense. As our wives/girlfriends/(both?) get used to their fathers/brothers/significant-others carrying, they will warm to the idea of guns-in-society generally. As they realize that civilian-men-with-guns are a source of security they will begin to warm to the idea of civilian-women-with-guns are a source of personal security.
I see the popularization of concealed-carry as an important vehicle toward the acceptance of guns-in-society generally. To get to the end-goal of a society trained-to-arms, I'm prepared to live with Shall-Issue.
I imagine that you whole-heartedly endorse Vermont's no-law on either concealed or open-carry. I take it that you are not-altoghether-DIS-satisfied with Michigan's compromise with Constitutional-Open-Carry/Shall-Issue-Concealed-Carry. (I beg your forgiveness if I mis-presume on these points.) How did the other Constitutional Carry States (Alaska, Arizona, Texas, etc.) get to where they are? Did they step through Shall-Issue? Is there a State that went directly from Won't-Issue to Constitutional-Carry in one step? (I'm sorry, I have not studied this point so I'm hoping that another forum member might inform me.)
Our goals are not tremendously far-apart. Where we differ seem to be primarily how we get from where-we-are toward/to where-we-want-to-be. Is the Michigan experience transportable to any other States? Which ones? Is Shall-Issue-Concealed-Carry so absolutely-abhorrent that it must be opposed as the primary obstacle to be taken first? How did the Shall-Issue States get from either May-Issue or Won't-Issue? Could it be that the lessons from these States might be transportable to the remaining 10 Won't-Issue States?
What are the experiences of various States in advancing the practices of concealed-carry and open-carry? Was it easier to get traction on concealed-carry or easier on open-carry? Did concealed-carry growth tend to foster open-carry growth? Did open-carry growth tend to foster concealed-carry growth? Did each feed on the other? Did men start and their women follow? Did independent women begin to focus on their personal security and sought-out CCPs as a means to an effective self-defense? Did the elderly adopt guns for home defense first and then concealed carry later?
My goal is to get guns in the hands and hearts of as many voters as possible. Whether that gun is on the hip vs. thigh-holster is much less important to me. I leave others free to choose their own priorities. In my view, any means effective toward another million gun-owners is well worth-while. As disgusting as our political institutions are, I want to know how to manipulate them in the most effective way possible. I wouldn't exclude any tactic merely because it doesn't get us to respect-for-the-2A in a single bound.
Mark

 

[Bikenut]

To MarkPA

Michigan had Constitutional Carry until some folks thought concealed carry permits were "reasonable". And that happened decades ago... it is only in the past 7 or 8 years that open carry brought the actual right to bear arms into public view.

And it really doesn't matter if you are "prepared to believe" what I said about how open carry liberated Michigan from the ignorance about the legality of carrying a gun in plain sight without the need for a permit because...well... just ... follow the links I provided in prior posts...

Let me know when you get past the belief that government has the authority to control/restrict rights.... When that happens you will understand that rights are absolute and government interference with exercising rights is "infringing" and is done for one purpose only......... to control the populace. And as long as you are willing to compromise because that compromise seems "reasonable" you are supporting whatever the government considers to be "reasonable" control of rights.

I firmly believe that there should not even be a need for a 2nd Amendment since we are all born with the right to keep and bear arms and it is such a natural right that only a tyrant (in government or your neighbor) would want to make it easy to control others by restricting that right.