“Openly carrying a weapon — which is allowed by the constitution — disrupts basically everything going on in the city. I have a great deal of respect for the Second Amendment … but I have very little patience for people who come in to make show and disrupt city operations.” – Aurora (CO) city councilman Bob LeGare in Aurora bans open carry of guns at the municipal center [at denverpost.com]
Love the constitution, except when it tries your patience…
I love that he is saying flat out that he’s knowingly violating the constitution, as he sees it!
Good. Then grant me Constitutional concealed carry. No permits. No background check. No “mother may I”.
Look it’s another “but” head
Lols, I’m using this one. Butheads are showing up everywhere…
“I love and support [insert human right here] except when I don’t and have a lie to tell about it.
Except when you have an out-of-stater whose permit isn’t recognized by the great state of Colorado how else can one carry? Perhaps then you should recognize all state permits. Better yet pass an ordinance that allows concealed carry at the municipal center whether you have a permit or not. Now that would show respect for the Second Amendment.
Next will he ban people of color from sitting at lunch counters? “Nothing against them people so long as they know their place and don’t get disruptive”.
Yup.
Why would anyone want to carry a gun? Why did Rosa Parks want to sit in the front of the bus? I respect the constitution but some people need to know their place. OK, now I understand councilman.
I carry a gun because I am a free man and not a slave. However the sight of a free man tends to freak some people out, so I keep my freedom secret.
Exactly! Why did women want to vote.
can you say recall election ?……
Suppose I stand with a sign on the sidewalk in front of City Hall … and some people have a strong emotional reaction to my sign and those people “disrupt city operations”. Does that mean I must pack up and go home and never hold my sign in front of City Hall again?
In other words we can exercise our rights as long as politicians and people approve of the way that we exercise our rights … which means that our “rights” are not rights at all.
‘I have a great deal of respect for the First Amendment … but…’
You, sir, win the Intertubez for the day!
“The first amendment protects speech I agree with. Speech I disagree with is hate speech.”
/prog
The irony here is how many TTAG posters try to shame open carriers. It’s effectively the same “but” argument.
Thank you for pointing that out.
The irony here is how some trolls try to lump all objections to open carry demonstrators who act like idiots, into one general smear, as a straw man argument.
“The irony here is how many TTAG posters try to shame open carriers. It’s effectively the same “but” argument.”
Slung on your back, no problem.
In your hands at ‘low ready’, *problem*.
I tend to agree with this. I am about as pro-open carry as anyone can get. (At least I think I am.)
Open carry of a handgun nominally means it is in a holster and openly visible, not in your hand. I like to think of open carry of a long gun as on a sling slung over your shoulder with your hands NOT on the long gun.
Who knows, maybe even that is too restrictive.
So, you’re the one who decides how one is to… Oh nevermind, you’ve missed the whole argument and aren’t even listening. “I support Open Carry, but, only if it’s done how I say it should be done.”
So you say, now, and perhaps always, but others in here have slammed OCers for carrying in “low ready” when such was either not the case (it was slung) or two or three carriers were smiling, wearing their group’s t-shirts, posing for a picture and conveyed nothing menacing by their technical low ready stance.
I get what you’re saying and I agree with it. I’ll go further and suggest OC demonstrators should always be organized and in an obvious group. It’s just more easily identifiable.
Still, there are some rabid anti-OCers in here who willfully misstate the facts and mischaracterize the nature of their opposition. In that regard, they’re no better than gungrabbers.
If you’re stepping into a Chipolte kitted up like you’re about to go on dismounted patrol in Fallujah, yeah we have a problem.
I think we PotG ought to get our act together on this OC issue. Both of the above comments have a lot of validity:
– “The irony here is how many TTAG posters try to shame open carriers. It’s effectively the same “but” argument.”
– If you’re stepping into a Chipolte kitted up like you’re about to go on dismounted patrol in Fallujah, yeah we have a problem.
We all need to remember what we ought to be doing with this OC issue: viz, making a political statement. We ought NOT be ‘Riding armed to terrify the people’. To do so is to be COUNTERproductive.
That said, most of us on the blogs were NOT present at Chipotle, etc. We don’t know with certainty how the OC’ers conducted themselves. We can nevertheless be confident that the state-owned media would photograph and report such events in the most offensive way possible. Similarly, we can assume that the participants took less than extraordinary care to choreograph their behavior and appearance in such a way as to frustrate the media.
We ought to be spending our time thinking about how to execute OC events in such a way as to:
– gather media attention
– avoid or minimize the ability of state-owned media to portray the events in a threatening light
– explain our case for OC and gun rights generally
I don’t think that OC is extraordinarily important functionally. (Even so, I think some good arguments can be made for OC; if there were no such arguments then all cops would CC). Rather, I think we should be explaining that we gun-owners and carriers want to come out-of-the-closet and exercise our 2A rights without being shamed by Moms and other hoplophobes. We should be talking about “Gun-Pride” or “2A-Pride”.
Those within our own ranks (PotG) who outright condemn ALL OC are doing our cause a DIS-service; ‘I’m a gun owner BUT [all] OC is ba a a a a ad’. These guys are playing into the hands of the Moms and state-owned media.
Let’s try to get some solidarity here. The “like . . . on . . . patrol in Fallujah” is a good point. Broad-brush condemnation of OC is counter-productive. We should be brain-storming about how to do these OC events in the most constructive way possible. Remember, there are still a number of States where OC is prohibited (e.g., FL and SC) and plenty of States where it is legal but not practiced. Done wisely, OC can be the vessel that “carries” the general cause of gun-rights to widespread attention in the minds of uncommitted voters.
GeoffPR: THIS guy grindstone’s fevered and fanciful account is an example of what I’m referring to: overheated, over the top, and off the mark rheroric, bearing no relation to reality.
Please define the problem, other than “I don’t approve/like how you peacefully and lawfully exercise your rights.”
+1
If you want to open carry without creating a hubbub buy yourself some chinos, a polo shirt, a pair of handcuffs and a handcuff holster. Noticed this at a post office a while back. Thirty people in front of me and I seemed to be the only person who noticed the guy openly carrying a handgun.
Could it be that he was actually a LEO. I believe LEOs can enter a Post Office while they are armed.
That was my assumption, but I didn’t see a badge. Either everyone else assumed the same, or didn’t notice or care. I’m guessing the average non gun owner has no idea how much trouble you can get into for carrying a firearm into a post office.
Then again, how concerned are the local PD with enforcing federal laws?
Lions running freely around a post office would be potentially dangerous. If they let Panthera leo roam then the People would be wise to be armed.
Hey……..I resent that remark
wait……..Panthera Leo is not I.
😀
Reminds me of my stopping for coffee at my local Dunkun Doughnuts in NJ. Couple of times I noticed this 40-something y.o. woman in ordinary street cloths standing in-line with me. Dozens of Catholic school-girls were milling about giggling and talking. I think I must have been the only patron who noticed the six-shooter on her gun belt. One day I asked her: “Are you a cop?” Answer: “Yes” “But you are not in uniform. (Thank you Captain. Obvious). “I’m a detective”.
I remind you – this was the Garden State – hotbed of hoplophobia. Leaves me wondering whether hoplophobia is a cultivated affect or a natural phenomena.
“Leaves me wondering whether hoplophobia is a cultivated affect …”
Yes, this is a cultivated effect. My children could care less if they see an armed person at a park or the restaurant. They could care less because they learned from watching me. For one, I don’t freak out if I see someone who is openly armed. For another, they frequently see me openly armed.
Last year, I was walking around the house shirtless getting ready for the day with my G19 exposed, sticking out of my waistband. I asked my oldest, out of curiosity, if she ever notice my gun…
She said, “Daddy, I forget you have a gun, even when I can see it.”
Fear of guns isnt primordial, it’s taught.
I encountered a similar situation at a Starbucks in North Jersey. A guy in a dark polo shirt and khakis, openly carrying a pistol. No visible badge. Nobody gave a damn, nobody freaked out. Out of curiosity, I talked to a different cop I know about this and he confirmed that this was most likely a cop, just not in uniform. No big deal.
I respect the 4th amendment, but we need to see your papers and toss your house. I respect the 1st, but if you oppose us you should be silent. Now the big difference is they want to disarm us and we don’t usually ask them to shut up. Quite the contrary because we often want to ask them questions that show exacyly how dumb they are… They usually plead the 5th.
In my experience virtually nobody notices a gun on your hip. Even the anti’s.
Bob LeGare and others like him are working the same tired Reefer Madness or uppity negro tripe of decades past.
I’m going to take an unusual position on this, at least when it comes to public meetings, and I hope it doesn’t get me tarred and feathered.
The right being exercised by open carry during public meetings is less the right secured by the 2nd Amendment than it is the right guaranteed by the 1st, freedom of speech. Speech at public meetings is accommodated within the structure of the meeting so the right may be exercised by all, and no one may exercise that right in a disruptive manner or while someone else is speaking. Open carry at public meetings, particularly of long guns, is typically more about making one’s view known than anything else.
The answer, of course, is concealed carry free of unlawful infringement. That would preserve the rights secured by both the 1st and 2nd. If large signs are not allowed at meetings because they disrupt others’ freedom of expression, why should long guns openly displayed be allowed?
I’m not sure how defensible this position is, but I’m putting it out there.
A long gun (or any gun, open or concealed) at a meeting is disruptive only when it is the only gun, or belongs to only one group of people. As long as there are others with similar guns, there is no threat and everyone behaves politely.
So the answer is… force each group in attendance to have at least 1 armed person present?
Nope. Ideally, the individuals have the option to bear arms or not; shall not be infringed. Frankly, if the issue wasn’t blatantly manufactured through social engineering, it wouldn’t be an issue at all. The presence of firearms wouldn’t even be an issue.
Ok.. I should have used /sarc tags. I agree with you, John in Ohio. I was merely trying to use irony to point out the flaw in the logic provided by Alexander. You can’t (reasonably) force any other group to bring guns, so, by his logic, everyone should leave the guns at home. I disagree with that; everyone should have the choice anywhere that is open to the general public. I can only see exceptions if the venue is willing to provide security sufficient that they will guarantee (financially) that no unauthorized person will have a weapon of any prohibited type AND that there are sufficient checks and balances amongst the authorized people that their carry of weapons cannot pose any significant threat to the unarmed. Such a guarantee is almost certainly going to require payout, and probably sooner than later, so I’d imagine most would avoid trying to make it.
The “nope” was just in the off chance you were an anti since your name didn’t look familiar to me. 😀
Baloney. A single person, lawfully exercising a Right, is not disruptive merely by presence.
Not disruptive to you or I and many other people of the gun types. The Meltdown Moms and other gun/gun owner haters will implode or explode because it does not meet their approval. .
The position holds only if exercising the right of free speech is somehow infringed by the mere exercise of the right to bear arms. Fortunately, it doesn’t.
Quote of the Day: Socratic Method Edition:
A sidearm lawfully carried, does not physically obstruct other people’s vision, hearing or participation.
I’m still not sure. Typically the point of open carry of a long gun at a public meeting is to make a statement, like carrying a sign. We have the right to freedom of speech in a public forum, but we accept restrictions on when and how we may exercise it (e.g., wait your turn for the microphone, respect time limits, etc.).
I don’t accept prohibition of concealed firearms as Constitutional, but I do acknowledge the government’s authority to designate how the right to freedom of speech may be exercised. If signs are not allowed in a town hall meeting but speech is accommodated, and open carry of long guns is not allowed (as a form of speech) but CCW is, it seems pretty kosher.
I had an officer try that line of thinking. I told him that I just happen to be in a public place and armed. No dice for him. 😉
Outside the Whitehouse fence some DC cops were trying to get us to leave. I told him that I was just hanging out in DC enjoying a nice day like any other visitor. No dice for him. We were actually keeping a spot open for the main group to assemble. Officers were trying to set up a buffer before the group got there. That’s probably why that same officer darn near broke my knees a couple of hours later. He wasn’t too happy.
How would government sort out who is armed for protest and who is just armed if they don’t have a sign? Generally, I don’t bring signs to gatherings. People often ask me to hold one for a while or hang on to a flag for them for a few minutes and I do help them out. Generally though, I don’t like having something that indicates I am “protesting” when an officer wants to move people along. It’s too difficult to use my normal defense with a straight face. 🙂
People like this might want to get out more…
Open carry where I live is completely unremarkable. Doesn’t “disrupt” anything. Last time I was in the courthouse, the only question about the gun was why I didn’t carry the revolver anymore. Been trying to talk her into trying a semi-auto for quite a while now.
But, of course people like this man have no interest in anything but controlling other people. Actual facts are quite immaterial.
who gives a $4!t how you feel about me exercising my rights.
He has a great deal of respect for the 2A and the Constitution. He just hates it when people have the nerve to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights. Got it.
I’m sure this socialist progressive would support the burning of crosses on a black persons property as so many open minded ACLU types did since the 1970s. They said it would not disrupt anything.
When the Black Panther Party For Self-Defense walked into the state capitol in California they were not yelling or screaming or being nasty. They were using the 1st and 2nd amendments combined to protest. I’m not afraid of black or white people peacefully protesting with firearms. If you are perhaps you should check to see that your bed sheet uniform and pointy hat are fitted properly.
Agreed. If you are a politician afraid of getting shot by your constituents, perhaps you should stop doing things that would get you shot by your constituents?
I’m sure this guy would ban opinions contrary to his, that are disruptive to the council.
Just another closet totalitarian.
It’s incredibly disheartening to me to hear that a politician, the very people we hire to operate our state, or our country, within the confines of the Constitution, don’t understand their job.
The Constitution does not *allow* ANYTHING. It tells the government what it may and may not do. It does NOT tell the People what we may and may not do.
This truth is lost to so many today, especially our politicians.
He might well overall be a Person of the Gun but just against open-carry. I say this because I was like this for awhile until I learned more about open carry. But before then, I was vehemently against any assault weapons ban, magazine capacity limitations, etc…but also not for open-carry and was surprised when I found out it was even legal.
What I realize is that some views about guns are so programmed into us by society that even rather pro-gun people who would be considered extremist by the antis can still be anti-gun in various ways by POTG standards.
I had to essentially de-program myself. I do think this guy has a point in that open carry can be disruptive if not done right. I mean if you go waltzing around like that guy near the school with a rifle in this day and age of mass shootings and yes it can be disruptive. But even though disruptive, I do believe it is a right and thus not something the government should ban. It is kind of like if I went around engaging in some kind of controversial free speech that, while totally legal, might not be a good idea for me to do.
Ironically, some of the state constitutions in existence specifically talk about how the state government has the authority to regulate the concealed carrying of guns, as at the time, open-carry was legal and the norm and concealed carry was a bit suspect.
I am glad that you have been successful in your deprogramming but you missed some.
I mean if you go waltzing around like that guy near the school with a rifle in this day and age of mass shootings and yes it can be disruptive.
When we allow that sort of imagery to manifest in a discussion on the bearing of arms, it taints any possible intent of the actor. We just recently had a situation where there was a report of a man with a rifle was walking up a busy rural state road in front of the high school, middle school, and elementary school (two separate complexes next to each other). It was in the morning as buses and cars were arriving. They never did find the person. A week later, I was talking with a bus driver and it turned out that it was his son just walking from one school to the other so he could ride his father’s bus. They never “caught” the young man and he was not in any way armed. He was merely traveling on the public way in the legally proscribed manner. Even if someone had been walking along the road armed, it wouldn’t have been anything to freak out about. I have to remind local officials every now and then. I cautioned a few peace officers that even if they had found the suspect, there wouldn’t have been much that they could’ve done and that they shouldn’t anyway. It is just a person exercising the right to travel while exercising the right to bear arms. You cannot imply evil intent from that without being destructive to Liberty. How else was someone to walk and be armed without going miles out of their way? The two complexes span between the two main rural state routes in that area and there are no back roads for many miles. They agreed after hearing brief argument.
Ironically, some of the state constitutions in existence specifically talk about how the state government has the authority to regulate the concealed carrying of guns, as at the time, open-carry was legal and the norm and concealed carry was a bit suspect.
That’s actually an important point. IMHO, the shift is being cultivated for purposes of infringing upon the right to bear arms.
More ironic is that the US Constitution has a supremacy clause that makes clear that it overrides contrary state constitutions and laws.
True.
The shift, IMHO, is a flip of “good” and “bad”. At one time, the openly bearing of arms was considered “good” whereas concealing those arms might have been seen as potentially “bad”. I think that a widespread preference for concealing of arms while demonizing openly bearing arms also undermines the deterrent value of the 2A. I believe that thought also must have been in at least a few minds back then even if it might not have been articulated or documented. The open bearing of arms can have a positive effect on ordinary crime both as a deterrent and in actual defense (difficult to conceal a long gun); people would suspect a printing stranger and criminals would see a bunch of people armed. The open bearing of arms has a chilling effect on enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, wide acceptance of the open bearing of arms has positive individual and collective effects. Of course, I completely, without reservation, believe in and support the right of the individual to bear arms openly, concealed, or both without any permission.
Gunnies may be interested in a book titled Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic by Clayton E. Cramer. His study argues that the concealed carry laws were most likely passed as a complementary effort to the anti-dueling movement of that era.
If two gentlemen had a dispute over a matter of honor they would settle the matter in a duel. When dueling became non-PC, the States passed laws prohibiting the practice. Now, the legislatures had to consider the second-order effect of their anti-dueling laws. They figured that hot-headed men-of-honor would pull a knife and fight it out on the spot; to a more lethal effect. If a man were openly bearing arms others would be forewarned to mind his manners; but, if carrying concealed, an intemperate man could be caught off-guard.
Whatever the correct history might have been, now we need a strategy to get both OC+CC in as many States as possible. What should that strategy be?
First thing to do is construct a colorful map showing OC-only States (without permit), CC-only (with permit) States and OC+CC (with or without permit) States. Then, add some decoration to identify States that are CC-only but make some allowance for exposing your ‘butt’ inadvertently. Now, we ask the public, does this make any sense? Why should these States have concluded that they are OC-only those are CC-only and others are OC+CC? The human mind wants to find some order in his perception; but, this picture will not be reconcilable to any viewer’s perception of order. (Such a map will be the outcome of legislative decisions made – or not made – over the course of a century).
Then, we come up with sympathetic cases of where a gun owner was busted because his butt was showing for a little too long. We ask, why are these people getting punished so severely for displaying a little butt? Especially when – in so many States – OC is perfectly legal? The viewer is going to have a tough time figuring this out as well.
Finally, we point out that the cops always OC. Sometimes they OC when they are not in uniform. If the cops don’t frighten the hoplophobes why should we worry that citizens might scare the hoplophobes.
Probably, it will be best to take an intermediate step. Make it merely a small citation infraction with a $50 fine for showing butt (whether at all or too long). I think the voters will accept the fact that it doesn’t make sense to put a taxpayer in jail for several months just because he showed some butt once. In States where we have CC but not OC we are in pretty good shape; the main thing we need there is to protect carriers from harassment when their carry-clothing fails them.
It’s a separate matter to promote gun-rights via promotion of OC. Texas has been a great fight. It just didn’t make sense to most people throughout the country that Texas – of all places – was CC-only. So, we have gotten a lot of gun-rights publicity from the OCT movement. If Texans will just follow through by actively OC’ing in most of the State then we will have solidified the victory.
Where we will really make progress will be in States like PA and DE where OC is perfectly legal but still a social taboo. Unlike TX, there is no “fight” to wage with the police, courts and legislature. Our fight there is with our own sensibilities about our neighbors’ opinions of us. And, we also need to take care not to shoot ourselves in the holster. If we flub-it-up, we could inspire a legislative movement to ban OC in States that are now legal.
I think it’s going to be just a matter of time and we will win the OC fight as well as we have won the Shall-Issue fight and are winning the Constitutional Carry fight.
@MarkPA: Some of that seems familiar, as in I recall reading some of that history many years ago.
The author has the first 15 pages for review, http://www.claytoncramer.com/books/concealed.pdf. Thanks for the reading suggestion. 🙂
Apparently, I also missed a recent TTAG article…
Gun Hero of the Day: Professor Clayton E. Cramer. lol
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/robert-farago/gun-hero-of-the-day-professor-clayton-e-cramer/
“openly carrying a weapon — which is allowed by the constitution — but it disrupts basically everything”
Why? The city’s overreaction, the childish pretending to be hit so that mom and dad respond in sort? It’s as old as the invisible line drawn on the car’s back seat during a road trip…
If it’s legal and nobody is being shot, where’s the disruption? It’s in the minds of people who wish to oppress others by pretending to be harmed. In the unspoken agendas of politicians who don’t teach dispatchers and cops that there’s no reason to disrupt because someone made a phone call hoping to abuse the State for their oppressive tactics…
Aye. This^^^
Let me rephrase his words and see how they work in another context:
“Openly preaching for a religion — which is allowed by the constitution — disrupts basically everything going on in the city. I have a great deal of respect for the 1st Amendment … but I have very little patience for Mormons who come in to make show and disrupt city operations.” -Hence a ban on Mormon outreach in the city center.
Except it wouldn’t “agitate” anyone if morons would quit screaming that inanimate objects are evil and that anyone who owns an inanimate object is going to murder all of the children.
So wait a minute. He’s uncomfortable with peaceful, respectful citizens showing up with a lawfully carried sidearm and not threatening anyone or disrupting anything, just exercising their rights?
Well, maybe I’m uncomfortable showing up to petition the government for redress of grievances, only to find armed agents of the state on duty, albeit quietly and respectfully standing aside?
Who the hell is he to declare a monopoly on self-defense?
The boston tea party would have him clawing his eyes and ears out.
Does he get upset when cops open carry? When I see cops in black armored up like they are going to war(on their daily patrol giving folks BS tickets) Maybe some of us get twitterpatted…
Comments are closed.