This is going to pi$$ off a lot of people, but

[mrortega]

There are threads running around talking about our gun rights and if we don't exercise them we will lose them. I want to know what you consider the threshold that should not be crossed. Most of us know we can openly carry a long arm. BUT where does the carrying of one cross the line?

Examples: I can legally sit at the Four Freedoms monument on the riverfront in Evansville in a lawn chair, in camo with an AR loaded with a 30 round magazine and not be breaking the law. A person can march around Monument Circle in downtown Indy with a shot gun cradled in their arms. Someone can sit in a chair outside the mayor of their city's home with a scoped bolt action rifle and binoculars. All these things are legal. But should they be done? I don't think so. Why? Because they all probably cross the line with the public on what is perceived as a perfectly legal activity versus a threatening action.

Some of you will say this shouldn't be a problem. But I'll say right now that if things like this happen there will be a big problem. The public will soon scream for something to be done to outlaw those activities. The political pressure will be so intense eventually that our friends won't stand a chance at the polls and real anti's will be elected and laws WILL be enacted that will hurt.

So, what is your idea of a threshold that shouldn't be crossed?

 

[indiucky]

One can exercise their gun rights without being a showboat....If they are they could find themselves in a Randy Marsh, "I thought this was America moment."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2zlPNGuPbw

 

[the1kidd03]

I think the line was inherently drawn with the advent of modern pistols. They were made to be easy to carry, thus eliminating the need to carry a long gun. I agree to some extent that "if you don't use them you loose them" whereby citizens are no longer accustomed to seeing long guns on people in everyday life and would panic. That being said, however, I think the change needs to be gradual in order to avoid it back firing on our rights.

I can see the argument that getting accustomed to seeing long guns will make them not question carrying a pistol, but then it's also "tempting fate" so to speak. I personally don't see the risk being worth it and I OC 99% of the time.

Nobody actually carries a long gun with them every day as they would a pistol. That means that they are carrying a long gun for the sole purpose of "activism." It's one thing to carry for defense as an "every day, going about my business" sort of situation. It's another in the eyes of the public when you're doing it solely for a "political purpose." In this case, I think it's much more likely to back fire on our rights than simply OC'ing your pistol where it's safely in a holster (in the public's eye.)

 

[KG1]

My personal feelings on the subject is I just live my life and do the things I would normally do on a regular basis.

I wouldn't go out of my way to do the extra curricular things that you mention in the OP just because I can or because I aim to prove something. If I OC a handgun it is because that is something I choose to do as part of my normal regular everyday activities.

As far as carrying a rifle around goes I would not do so unless I felt the need to carry one for a legit purpose. YMMV.

I speak only for myself.

 

[ATM]

...But I'll say right now that if things like this happen there will be a big problem. The public will soon scream for something to be done to outlaw those activities...

Outlawing the bearing of arms would be illegal.

The mob can't just get whatever the mob demands on any particular day and they can't elect anyone with the authority to do so.



I speak for millions.

 

[Rookie]

Tell that to Illinois, California, and Washington D.C.

 

[Que]

My personal feelings on the subject is I just live my life and do the things I would normally do on a regular basis.

I wouldn't go out of my way to do the extra curricular things that you mention in the OP just because I can or because I aim to prove something. If I OC a handgun it is because that is something I choose to do as part of my normal regular everyday activities.

As far as carrying a rifle around goes I would not do so unless I felt the need to carry one for a legit purpose. YMMV.

I speak only for myself.

I totally agree! We have the constitutional right to do a great deal of things. If I NEED to carry an AR down the street, I will do it. If I NEED to sit outside on a lawn chair with my .308 and binoculars, I will do it. If I NEED to walk around the monument with my shotgun at port arms, I will do it. However, when will I ever NEED to do these things? If I do these things just to do them or to protect my rights, am I really doing that?

I NEED to carry a firearm because I want to protect myself. I NEED to carry something that is conducive to my lifestyle, so I carry a pistol. Some days I NEED to CC and some days I NEED to OC, not to demonstrate my rights, but out of necessity.

Like you, this is just my personal opinion.

 

[jgreiner]

What's legal and what is right are often two different things. Especially when the legal ones are oppressive.

 

[mrortega]

Outlawing the bearing of arms would be illegal.

The mob can't just get whatever the mob demands on any particular day and they can't elect anyone with the authority to do so.



I speak for millions.

Umm, the last time I checked OC is still illegal in Texas. I understand that you can't even print there or you can be arrested.

In New Mexico you can only carry one pistol at a time. No back up.

Why can't long arms be banned from certain places?

 

[CathyInBlue]

I think the line was inherently drawn with the advent of modern pistols. They were made to be easy to carry, thus eliminating the need to carry a long gun.

What is, for whatever reason, one were not able to take advantage of the LTCH in order to carry a handgun in public? Would it not follow that for that individual, carrying a long gun would be the only legal option? I'm not saying a main battle rifle or anything ostentatious like that. Just a simple, unadorned bullpup semi-auto with a sling around the end of the buttstock for shoulder carry. It would be as inobtrusive as possible, but only slightly more obtrusive than an OC'ed automatic.

 

[downzero]

It seems that you don't appreciate that both to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT. It has been infringed for a long time, but keep in mind that people have been kicking and screaming for censorship to silence the KKK, Neo-Nazi groups, newspapers, etc., for hundreds of years. We can still own printing presses. We can still say what we want. And the government cannot tell me what I can and cannot publish on my own personal blog.

It seems that what you're telling us is that we should self-censor so that people don't have to recognize our rights. I think that's a bunch of bull****. There might be a time and a place to carry firearms in the streets, and if that's what you're saying, I don't really disagree with that. But the suggestion that there is a line that ought not be crossed, or that we should moderate OUR exercise of rights because others don't think we deserve deference and respect is to cave to those who think that we ought not have them.

I do not open carry, but I'm glad that there are people who do. Without people challenging the bounds, there would be no rights.

I suggest that you watch the movie The People versus Larry Flynt. It has a simple message that may resonate with you in a way that this post cannot.

 

[the1kidd03]

What is, for whatever reason, one were not able to take advantage of the LTCH in order to carry a handgun in public? Would it not follow that for that individual, carrying a long gun would be the only legal option? I'm not saying a main battle rifle or anything ostentatious like that. Just a simple, unadorned bullpup semi-auto with a sling around the end of the buttstock for shoulder carry. It would be as inobtrusive as possible, but only slightly more obtrusive than an OC'ed automatic.

Sure, that's feasible. However, that is rarely seen or the cause of carrying. I would tend to think that if they weren't able to receive their LTCH then they are probably not legal in owning a firearm at all (felon).

I've known of guys who had committed various, serious crimes but were not convicted of felonies and were able to obtain their LTCH within recent years. I also have known felon(s) who are not legally permitted to own a gun at all. So, based on my own experience I would have to assume that theory to be relatively accurate.

I'm not saying that there AREN'T those who cannot obtain a LTCH and may still have a gun, but I think they would be a small minority and very rare. In which case, it would indeed be acceptable IMO. It's not MY opinion we need to worry about though.

There is of course a line to be drawn between what's socially acceptable. That line however, is open to interpretation and it's not fellow gun owners we need to worry about. It's those who don't even find carrying a pistol acceptable we should concern ourselves with. If they cannot even get past a pistol on a citizens hip, what will their perception of strangers carrying around "assault rifles" result in?

I'm the LAST person to truly "care" about other's feelings, to be honest. That said, I'm not willing to risk my gun rights in the name of "activisim" and the ignorance of the masses.

 

[R.G.Gray]

 

[mrortega]

It seems that you don't appreciate that both to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT. It has been infringed for a long time, but keep in mind that people have been kicking and screaming for censorship to silence the KKK, Neo-Nazi groups, newspapers, etc., for hundreds of years. We can still own printing presses. We can still say what we want. And the government cannot tell me what I can and cannot publish on my own personal blog.

It seems that what you're telling us is that we should self-censor so that people don't have to recognize our rights. I think that's a bunch of bull****. There might be a time and a place to carry firearms in the streets, and if that's what you're saying, I don't really disagree with that. But the suggestion that there is a line that ought not be crossed, or that we should moderate OUR exercise of rights because others don't think we deserve deference and respect is to cave to those who think that we ought not have them.

I do not open carry, but I'm glad that there are people who do. Without people challenging the bounds, there would be no rights.

I suggest that you watch the movie The People versus Larry Flynt. It has a simple message that may resonate with you in a way that this post cannot.

Idealism is the foundation of our democracy. BUT, we have to live in the real world. I'm not arguing that we don't have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm saying there is a line that we can't cross if we want to keep what we have. Most of what we have is based on the "reasonable man" idea. Carrying a pistol, openly or concealed is very sensible. Most people accept that. But doing something clearly out of the ordinary such as my examples is going to eventually bring down the restrictions we all fear. "Your honor, I have the right to sit in front of the mayor's house with a high powered rifle." The reasonable man would likely decide other wise.

 

[the1kidd03]

Idealism is the foundation of our democracy. BUT, we have to live in the real world. I'm not arguing that we don't have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm saying there is a line that we [STRIKE]can't[/STRIKE] PERHAPS SHOULD NOT cross if we want to keep what we have. Most of what we have is based on the "reasonable man" idea. Carrying a pistol, openly or concealed is very sensible. Most people accept that. But doing something clearly out of the ordinary such as my examples is going to eventually bring down the restrictions we all fear. "Your honor, I have the right to sit in front of the mayor's house with a high powered rifle." The reasonable man would likely decide other wise.

FIFY I believe

In a discussion based on what's "socially acceptible" those little differences can mean the world. What I "can do," "cannot do," "should do," and "should not do" are all VERY different things and highly relative.

 

[Bunnykid68]

We live in a Representative Republic but sadly we act like a democracy

 

[ATM]

Umm, the last time I checked OC is still illegal in Texas. I understand that you can't even print there or you can be arrested.

In New Mexico you can only carry one pistol at a time. No back up.

Why can't long arms be banned from certain places?

Because of me

...and two Constitutional protections probably doesn't hurt.

 

[Que]

Umm, the last time I checked OC is still illegal in Texas. I understand that you can't even print there or you can be arrested.

In New Mexico you can only carry one pistol at a time. No back up.

Why can't long arms be banned from certain places?

Maybe I misread your initial thread, but is this what you want? I agree that it's bad judgment to do certain things, but I am certainly not for any kind of bans.

 

[ATM]

... That said, I'm not willing to risk my gun rights in the name of "activisim" and the ignorance of the masses.

If there is a risk of them being taken from you by the masses without you doing anything illegal to prohibit yourself, then they are not rights that you even currently possess.

And if you don't possess them now, how could you ever lose them in the future?

If you can't lose them in the future, what is there to worry about now?

 

[downzero]

Idealism is the foundation of our democracy. BUT, we have to live in the real world. I'm not arguing that we don't have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm saying there is a line that we can't cross if we want to keep what we have. Most of what we have is based on the "reasonable man" idea. Carrying a pistol, openly or concealed is very sensible. Most people accept that. But doing something clearly out of the ordinary such as my examples is going to eventually bring down the restrictions we all fear. "Your honor, I have the right to sit in front of the mayor's house with a high powered rifle." The reasonable man would likely decide other wise.

You're probably right. That's why the test is not what a "reasonable man" would decide. That might be an acceptable rule for many situations, but it does not work when one side has a claim of RIGHT.

You shouldn't have to worry about "keeping" what we have. The framers made it hard to change the constitution for a reason. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most important rights we have, and Americans will not be letting it go anytime soon.

This isn't about idealism versus reason. Every legal concept requires an application of logic. The idea is to make sure you're applying the proper test. The simple rule of reason just isn't sufficient for a fundamental, enumerated constitutional right. You're simply not applying a rigorous enough test.