Anti oc'ers just don't get it!

[IOC]

Lets be honest in what happened in California, citizens of that state chose to make a very public statement and drew the attention of the press announcing that they were going to exercise their right to open carry. It drew nationwide attention. I cannot think of a worse place to fight that battle. It drew the attention of the very anti-gun crowd in California and resulted in a ban on OC, put in place by people that had probably never seen anyone OC outside of on of the publicized events. The only good that will come out of the fight is that it demonstrates that California is attempting to do away with the 2A and is essentially guaranteeing that an appeal will reach the Supreme Court. But good hell what a roll of the dice, if when the appeal reaches the SC if the status quo has changed we could see a ruling that effects the entire country.

I agree with much of your assessment regarding California, but I believe that letting the law stand that allowed only OC without ammunition was an insult perpetrated against all Carry and needed to either be removed or strengthened. The benefit of this vote allows candidates who support the 2nd Amendment to use this as an argument in their campaign against their opponents in gun friendly districts.

Tony@IdahoOpenCarry.org
Open Carry is the Beautiful Bold Face of the 2nd Amendment

 

[Bikenut]

You are so helpless. Lets look at what I said:

I open carry much less than I conceal carry.

You are wrong in thinking this can mean I only CC. Saying I do something much less than something else means that I still do it to some amount. If I said I vote democrat much less than I vote republican, it implies I do vote democrat at times. If I wanted to say I only CC, than I would say "I only carry concealed".

Lets put some numbers in here for you, maybe it will help you understand.
Most of the time (90%) I carry concealed, and I therefore open carry much less often (10%). If I said I only conceal carry, that would be 100% and open carry would be 0%. But guess what? I didn't say one or the other, I said both.

Lets say there are 30 days in a month, if I open carry much less than I carry concealed, it might look something like this: Open carry 5 days, carry concealed 25 days.

Insults and condescension are unnecessary and do absolutely nothing to enhance your argument.

And I do understand that I asked a question and that your answer was ambiguous.

But... this much I will say to you Sir... we don't have to agree on anything else....but if you support the right to bear arms then we have more important things in common than we are contentious about.

 

[BC1]

Actually a person can never really "lose" a right simply because we are born owning rights just by being... born. However, it is possible, (and has already happened to a great degree) for a person to lose the ability to exercise a right due to "infringements" of control placed upon actually exercising the right.

Such as...

No one ever loses the right to carry an "arm" in a concealed manner. We are born with the right to carry "arms" in any manner we wish. The infringement is the government assuming control of who, where, when, and why, a person is "allowed" to exercise the right... and punishing anyone who actually exercises the right to carry an "arm" in a concealed manner without the permission of the government. It is the "permission" embodied in a "permit" that is the infringement.

However if a person cannot exercise the right without permission then they have "lost the ability to exercise the right" to the control of whoever gives or denys "permission". And, just from a practical standpoint, if it is impossible to exercise the right then the right has been "lost" because even if you have it you can't use it anyway.

Infringement - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

in·fringe·ment
noun \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Definition of INFRINGEMENT
1
: the act of infringing : violation
2
: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege
Examples of INFRINGEMENT

<any government action limiting freedom of speech is an infringement of the U.S. Constitution>


Some... ummm... light? reading...

Link Removed

Link Removed

Websters dictionary plays no part in legal definitions. Nowhere has the supreme court ever ruled that bear arms equates to carrying a gun. This from a GOP base.

Think of this in the perspective of the 1st amendment. You really have no freedom of speech either. it is regulated despite being born with a mouth and the ability to use it.

I'm not supporting the anti position. Just reminding everyone that as far back as 1791 no court ruling has stood.

 

[Bikenut]

Websters dictionary plays no part in legal definitions. Nowhere has the supreme court ever ruled that bear arms equates to carrying a gun. This from a GOP base.

Think of this in the perspective of the 1st amendment. You really have no freedom of speech either. it is regulated despite being born with a mouth and the ability to use it.

I'm not supporting the anti position. Just reminding everyone that as far back as 1791 no court ruling has stood.

Actually, when there isn't a definition contained within a law nor is there a definition contained within case law... although it may not be Websters... the dictionary is the source looked to.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL

-snip-"In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as:" -snip-

Entire opinion can be read here:

Opinion #7101

 

[Bikenut]

Websters dictionary plays no part in legal definitions. Nowhere has the supreme court ever ruled that bear arms equates to carrying a gun. This from a GOP base.

Think of this in the perspective of the 1st amendment. You really have no freedom of speech either. it is regulated despite being born with a mouth and the ability to use it.

I'm not supporting the anti position. Just reminding everyone that as far back as 1791 no court ruling has stood.

Folks still have the right to free speech. They have the right itself because they are born with it just like any other right... just the ability to exercise that right without suffering penalties has been regulated.

No one ever really "loses" a right... we just lose the ability to exercise it without being penalized for doing so.

I'm not arguing... I'm agreeing with you because the freedom to exercise the right has been lost.

 

[BluesStringer]

Ok Blues, I have a shocker for you, better sit down, I actually agree with you on something. (temporary insanity?) What you said here about California is 100% correct. ....

What an odd thing to say. There's no reason for me to sit down. I already knew I was right. Apparently you are so deeply steeped in angst over having your 822 bubble burst that you consider it insanity to abide the thought of me being correct and accurate about a completely unrelated subject. Very odd indeed. Fact is though, I was, and still am, right on the other subject as well. Perhaps if you took a step back and detached yourself from the arguments, and just looked at the respective positions objectively, you would see that as easily as you apparently recognized truth and accuracy in what I said here. There'd be no shame in having your mind changed by logic and citations of the law of unintended consequences. There should be, however, shame in resorting to comparisons between those who legitimately and genuinely disagree in good faith with you and the Brady Campaign.

Blues

 

[BC1]

Actually, when there isn't a definition contained within a law nor is there a definition contained within case law... although it may not be Websters... the dictionary is the source looked to.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL

-snip-"In the absence of any reported Michigan appellate court decisions defining "brandishing," it is appropriate to rely upon dictionary definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 699; 564 NW2d 13 (1997). According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition (1982), at p 204, the term brandishing is defined as:" -snip-

Entire opinion can be read here:

Opinion #7101

There is already a definition of "bear arms" in federal rulings. There are also at least three U.S. Supreme Court decisions that specifically state the right to "bear" arms does not equate to the right to "carry" arms. I believe these presently trump state laws.

Most recently (Sept. 2011) the U.S. ninth district court held that denial of a permit to carry does not violate the 2nd amendment (based on a state's refusal to allow carry permits). In the decision on this case the relevent case law was cited. In such an example they would not apply Webster's definition, but would look to the definitions held in the decisions of the high court. Heller and McDonald both established the right as individual but stopped short of stating bear=carry. Even the Dred Scott case encountered this issue in the mid 1800's.

 

[santa]

Hey Blues there is a song that makes me think of you, HARD TO BE HUMBLE ,by Mac Davis. My as you put it '822 bubble' has not burst. Your response was exactly what I and others predicted. I do object to permits for either OC or CC, but they are a fact of life. But never mind, the OP had other things in mind.
I really get tired of the OC vs CC debate. I do not give a rats a## how a person carries a gun. There are good arguements for CC and for OC. What matters most is the attitude of the person carrying the gun. Most guns are being carried for self-defence reasons,which is fine. If the gun is being carried to 'show off', thats something else.
Granted there will always be the 'the way I carry is best' types, we just have to learn to ignore them. It is amazing to me how many threads on this site are devoted to or mutated into this subject.

 

[Unfettered Might]

And their desire to ignore the OBVIOUS definition of a word has given me no choice but to ignore any obviously skewed rulings they hand down. They are after all, only men.

If the SCOTUS reversed Heller, would you turn in your guns? Or would you fight to the death for the preservation of liberty?

One look at my screen name should give you my answer.

 

[jg1967]

Knarren und Zigarren

Ratchets and cigar ??????

Actually Knarren is a colloquial word in German for guns! ;-)

 

[BC1]

And their desire to ignore the OBVIOUS definition of a word has given me no choice but to ignore any obviously skewed rulings they hand down. They are after all, only men.

If the SCOTUS reversed Heller, would you turn in your guns? Or would you fight to the death for the preservation of liberty?

One look at my screen name should give you my answer.

Interesting. What gun? It fell in the Hudson while striper fishing.

I just checked by my range as tonight is steel plate night. I have a large group of LEO's shooting tonight. The subject of gun confiscation came up. The general consus among them was they would, as a group, refuse to participate in a total confiscation. They still will confiscate from those with with a protection order or criminal conviction. It was comforting to hear them.

 

[Unfettered Might]

Interesting. What gun? It fell in the Hudson while striper fishing.

I just checked by my range as tonight is steel plate night. I have a large group of LEO's shooting tonight. The subject of gun confiscation came up. The general consus among them was they would, as a group, refuse to participate in a total confiscation. They still will confiscate from those with with a protection order or criminal conviction. It was comforting to hear them.

As they should on both counts.

 

[BluesStringer]

Hey Blues there is a song that makes me think of you, HARD TO BE HUMBLE ,by Mac Davis.

So let me get this straight....

I make a rather obvious assertion that is hardly controversial or the subject of any dispute amongst open or concealed carriers, that carrying an unloaded gun is no better than carrying a brick.

You, as reluctantly as you could have possibly stated it, agreed with me "100%."

I take note of your odd reluctance to agree with me simply on the basis of our strong disagreement(s) on a completely unrelated subject, and I'm the one who has a humility problem?

I guess I should be relieved actually. At least you didn't blame me for all your female friends getting raped, or try to say my supposed lack of humility is a valid comparison to Sarah Brady. Link Removed

You are truly an insufferable putz.

Your response was exactly what I and others predicted....Blah blah blah...

What the Hell are you goin' on about here? My response to the OC vs. CC "issue" is what you "and others" predicted? First, cite your prediction and second, quote how anything I said about OC/CC is "exactly" what you and others predicted I would say about it. Fact is moron, I said I support others' right to OC, but simply prefer CC for myself. No controversy at all in what I said about that.

What apparently bothered you is that I called the OP on the same thing that bugs the crap out of me about you, that all it takes is an honest, good faith disagreement with your position for you to try to equate the person/people in disagreement with you with the "Brady Bunch." It's total bull-s-h-i-t, and instead of backing off, or more appropriately, apologizing for such idiotic, purposely insulting and provocative twaddle, you've doubled-down at least three times that I can cite.

The only other thing I said about the OP was that using CA as an example of an "open carry" state that succumbed to anti-gun sentiment by outlawing "open carry" was a bad example, and you agreed with me "100%," remember??? You called it "temporary insanity" to agree with me, but pal, you were even wrong about that. There is no evidence that I have seen at all that your insanity is temporary. Link Removed

Blues

 

[santa]

I guess that you have not heard the song all the way through. It suits you perfectly, especially if you look in a mirror. You really do need an anger-management class. One other thing Ive found that as general rule people who give the finger at others are telling the world what their own emotional IQ is. I wont return the gesture.

 

[BluesStringer]

I guess that you have not heard the song all the way through. It suits you perfectly, especially if you look in a mirror. You really do need an anger-management class. One other thing Ive found that as general rule people who give the finger at others are telling the world what their own emotional IQ is. I wont return the gesture.

1) Not a particular fan of Mac Davis. Not going to listen to him just to get some quasi-cryptic message from a bumbling fool on the internet with extreme reading comprehension deficiencies. Besides, the title that you gave was the intended message anyway. Don't make yourself look any sillier by trying to deny it. My reply was wholly appropriate and on-point to that glittering jewel of collasal ignorance.

2) I'm not angry at you, I'm incredulous over your idiocy. Frustrated with having to correct all your misreadings and lack of understanding of basic concepts of liberty and constitutional truisms? Yep, definitely. Angry? I wouldn't waste the energy it takes to let fly a fart being angry with a stranger on the internet.

3) Perhaps we can actually make some headway here with the middle finger thing. Try to understand this: I see being compared to the Bradys just exactly the same way I intended the middle finger emoticon to be taken. It's intellectually lazy, an absolute lie that us honest-to-goodness 2nd Amendment advocates who happen to also be opponents of 822 are motivated in any way, shape, manner or form by the same brainless, anti-liberty ideology that the Bradys operate from, and the comparisons are intentionally insulting and provocative. And if we're keeping score, you're ahead by at least a three-to-one ratio in giving me the finger by that rationale. And that's before we even get into you equating opposition to 822 being responsible for your female "friend" getting raped! So if you really care about communicating with me sans what you perceive as anger, then learn to pay closer attention when you're reading, drop the Brady comparisons, and just state your case on their merits, if, that is, you can find any without all the extraneous BS. Your choice. But your multiple "F-You's" were no less understood as such than me posting the finger one time to say the same thing in response. I'm willing to call it even and try to start over. Are you?

Blues

 

[santa]

I was right Blues. Try to understand. Virtually ALL the anti- gun groups are opposed to HR822. The fact that some pro-gun people are also against it make me (and others) wonder if some (NOT ALL) of the people opposed to HR822 are really doing more harm than good by at least in this case. I believe they are.
You have expended a great deal of time taking apart what I say. You in the last post even managed to fabricate and twist what I have said into imagining that I gave you the finger. Does the fact that I disagree with you mean Im giving you the finger? NO! Yet it was you that actually gave me the finger.
I am willing to stop this if you do. But Blues, my friend who was raped does exist and it was because she obeyed the law when she crossed the State line and disarmed. She was defenceless and if we had National Reciprocity at the time she MIGHT not have been attacked. At least she would have had a chance. You have repeatedly ridiculed the story and even cast doubt on her very existence. And why should I have to offer you or anybody else proof of her existance? She suffered through the most horrible thing a woman could ever endure. It was suggested that she should get on this site, but why should she subject herself to being grilled, "are you real?" She supports HR822.

 

[santa]

If National Reciprocity does in fact become law people will be able to carry in more places. But these laws are only a step in a long quest to get our rights back. Despite what you may believe about me, I think permits are a waste of time and money. I have one just to keep from being arrested. There are even problems in so called Constutitional Carry States. Did you know in Wyoming while residents dont need a permit, non residents do? Under FEDERAL LAW if you do not have a STATE issued permit of some kind and you carry a loaded gun within 1000 feet of a school you are committing a FEDERAL FELONY? All but one of the Constutitional Carry States still issue permits for reciprocity, none of the bills introduced would change that.
But we have done all this XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
Lets end it but will you please admit my friend does exist? Everytime I visit I see that big scar on her cheek it reminds me of what she went through. She sees it in the mirror all the time. If nothing else please realize that the way you have referred to her is rude and insulting. If the fact that my friend and myself support HR822 and want to carry a gun to protect ourselves and our families is selfish, we are guilty as charged. Every day that goes by more women, actually everybody is at increased risk crossing State lines and National reciprocity is only a starting step in the right direction.

 

[LkWd_Don]

Good Post IOC.....

But I think things are much worse than anyone realizes because ...................

We do NOT have the ability to exercise the right to keep and bear arms anymore. That ability has been legislated out of existence.

The very fact that there is a call to the ATF to ascertain if the person is "allowed" to buy that gun means.... we are being given, or denied, permission... and that is an infringement.

I'm not sure about the laws of other States but here in Michigan the ability to exercise the right to bear arms does not exist. What does exist are laws that dictate who, where, and how, a gun can be carried. Even open carry is restricted in where folks can/cannot carry.

So folks.. take a good hard look at the laws where you live.... is the ability to exercise the right to bear arms restricted (infringed upon) with laws that must be obeyed in order to carry a gun?

Yes they are and in some places, like Illinois, you can not even get a Concealed Carry Permit and that is supposed to be called Freedom?
Sorry, not in my book.
With Washington State being an Open Carry State but the very real laws (2nd Amendment infringements) that would make a criminal out of me if I did not abide by them by getting my CCP so that should I get cold and want to stay warm which might hide my previously openly carried handgun, I pay the fees which is what those who support big government are all about, just so that I can exercise what is left of my Constitutional Rights.

 

[LkWd_Don]

I find it highly ironic that the only right mentioned in the constitution (plus amendmends) that has an explicit statement added that it may not even be INFRINGED on - as opposed to blatantly denied - is the one that is probably the one the most infringed on of them all.

Let's look at this a bit. Please visit the link and follow along.
Bill of Rights Transcript Text

1st Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Infringed vs Abridged.. Hummm, How does the dictionary read on this? Abridge | Define Abridge at Dictionary.com

9th Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Here we have deny and or disparage.

And we will look at the
10th Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When you add the 9th and 10th amendments into the mix you come up with the concept that Our Government is endlessly violating our rights on a daily basis and until WE the PEOPLE demand they do otherwise, we will continue to get the same.

My signature admits that I CC, it also implies that all carry should be legal. If you watch the theme of my posts in generally you will come to understand that I fully believe that we should all be allowed to Bear Arms as the Constitution declares in the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments. Some will have a hard time digesting that so let me sum it up.
2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms.
9th Amendment our rights shall not be denied or disparaged
and
10th Amendment, the rights not specified to the Federal Government belongs to the States or the people.

Who are we? We are the People! Where does our Government get its authority or power? From each of us collectively and as long as we squabble over OC vs CC we are not United Against those who Violate Us in their infringing, disparaging, abridging laws or who out-right Deny us our Rights!

We need to Unite and REMIND those in our Government that we are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned to us, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or dispargement.
Once we have the Federal Government in line, then we can work on our Respective States

 

[IOC]

Who are we? We are the People! Where does our Government get its authority or power? From each of us collectively and as long as we squabble over OC vs CC we are not United Against those who Violate Us in their infringing, disparaging, abridging laws or who out-right Deny us our Rights!

We need to Unite and REMIND those in our Government that we are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned to us, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or dispargement.
Once we have the Federal Government in line, then we can work on our Respective States

Amen and Amen! Well said and hopefully all who carry will eventually get to this place.
Tony@IdahoOpenCarry.org
Open Carry is the Bold Beautiful Face of the 2nd Amendment