I understand our Right to Bear Arms, but I don't understand concealed carry.

[1-Old-Man]

I fully understand that we have the right to bear arms, but what I don't understand is how that gets distorted to be a right to carry hidden arms. I think that if every Tom, Dick, Harry, Betty, Sue, and Marry has the right to bear arms then the rest of us have an equal right to know they are doing it. Do away with concealed carry and require people who are armed to have their weapon in plain sight. At least then the rest of us would know at a glance when we should run for our lives.

You know that if you are out in your car and you are in an accident in which someone hits you from the rear that the car that hit you is always at fault - well, how about making automatically a murder charge if anyone is shot in the back. It is simply impossible to claim self-defense if you shoot someone between the shoulder blades.

[cthulu2016]

1. The solution to shot-in-the-back is for

the prosecutor to note that someone was shot in the back, and for the jury to reach the conclusion you yourself reached about he significance of that piece of evidence.

[hack89]

2. Because open carry scares and upsets a lot of people

look no further than the threads on DU.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I think it would be cool to make armed folks walk around with their guns on their holsters.

I used to like when Little Joe would show how he fast he was with his gun.


And the rest of us would know whom not to come within gun sight of.

[Igel]

11. I've been in open carry states.

The laws may have changed, but if you wanted to carry and have your gun in plain view at all times that was your choice.

No need for any kind of permit. No application. No permission. But it was a bit strange. Once I was told that if you didn't want to take your gun into a store you couldn't lock it in the trunk, that was "concealed." You have to lock your car and leave your gun in plain sight. Don't know if that's true. If so, it was a stupid law--something I thought at the time.

Open carry is risky. Everybody knows you have a gun. If they see it it can be stolen. Pick-pockets might become pick-holsters.

I had a roomate who had a concealed weapons permit. (In case of armed invasion by the Soviets, he was ready. He also reloaded his own ammo and even cast his own bullets.) He would ride his bike to work in clement weather and carry his gun concealed. He didn't want to have it exposed. Fear of theft. fear of having attention drawn to himself. Fear of bad weather developing. He really wore it not because he thought the bike lanes were especially dangerous--this was Eugene, Oregon 25 years ago--but because he was an armored car driver. In case he was disarmed carrying his "service" weapons he'd have a backup. If he was accosted on the way to work they could get his access card or get him to try to get them through security--so he had a weapon. (Two, actually. He assumed if the bad guys found one they'd stop searching him.) You just didn't want to see his mental state when there was an armored car robbery with deaths. "Temporarily catatonic" might cover it.

[duffyduff]

3. "We" don't have a right to bear arms--the Roberts court's fables notwithstanding

That is NRA crackpot rhetoric which originated from a batshit crazy person who himself had once been convicted of murder (later overturned on appeal, as I remember). He and his crazies took over what was once a reputable organization which never opposed gun control laws prior to the late 1970s.

[1-Old-Man]

4. You call it a "fable", I call it established law set by the highest Court

Its the law. And you can rant and rave about some unidentified 'batshit crazy' person all you want but it doesn't change the straight forward fact that our highest Court has found that we do have a right to bear arms.

[rl6214]

6. It's happening all over the country and

No one is "run(ning) for our lives".

There are concealed carry holders all around you now. How many concealed carry shootings have you seen?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. No one is running for their lives because they don't know which nuts are packing/nt

[rl6214]

8. Kind of proves my point

There is no need to run for your life, except maybe in Chicago.

[The Straight Story]

9. Part of it is practical

You have a gun in it's holster on your waist. You throw on a coat because it is cold. You now can go to prison for years for concealing.

When I was in HS a judge came in to talk to us and told us about an old woman who went to scioto downs (race track). She forgot she had put her gun in her purse and it was found on her and she was sent to prison (it is a 4th degree felony here).

People who are going to rob/shoot others don't care about the law and will cc anyway. Allowing people to legally do so (via training and a permit) is simply fair and those who do so legally are not the ones you should be worrying about.

[alc]

10. the "right to bear arms" is about protection from the government

I don't think most people on either side understand it - or at least don't think about it often. The 2nd wasn't about defending property or hunting (those were assumed to be normal parts of life for many of the people). It was about the government not being allowed to confiscate all of the guns if citizens started to get angry. That confiscation would stop people from being able to hunt and defend themselves, but would also protect the government from armed rebellion. It was also about the government paying attention to the other amendments because they had a reason to fear citizens (beyond voting - which they had a lot of control over any how just like now).

I wish we (both sides) could get away from the debates on self-defense and hunting and sport, and talk about the real purpose of the amendment (limiting government power). Is it still useful? How do the different gun control proposals impact citizens as far as protecting them from out-of-control government (feds to local sheriff)? We'll never get agreement on the appropriate maximum size of magazines. But we may find ways to give us some protection from government (make the local sheriff fear us a little before abusing our rights) while also protecting us from each other.

I never want a policeman to be shot. But I wouldn't mind if they had to worry about a concealed weapon any time they stopped someone who wasn't doing anything wrong - "has this person been profiled one to many times, and this is the point he snaps". If the person is committing a crime it's best to assume a weapon. But, if they aren't doing anything wrong and you can assume no weapon, harassment can get pretty easy to do frequently and get away with - it's not even recognized as harassment at first by anyone and ever by some.

As far as concealed/open: if someone's going to shot you they probably wouldn't mind committing another crime by concealing the weapon. But they will be able to see when a law-abiding citizen is around to stop them if the law-abiding citizen has to have the gun in the open.

If Z was planning on shooting Trayvon it's a pretty good guess that he wouldn't have shown Trayvon the gun until he was ready. If we assume Trayvon attacked Z first, we can guess that it wouldn't have happened if Trayvon saw the gun and thought better of it. So, in this case stopping concealed carry only saves a life if Trayvon was the aggressor and made Z fear for his life. Still saves a life, but not as compelling an argument as saying it would have stopped Z from killing someone who wasn't doing anything wrong.