Ban the Open Carry of Firearms

[SecularMotion]

When militia members and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, Va., last Saturday with Nazi flags and racist placards, many of them also carried firearms openly, including semiautomatic weapons. They came to intimidate and terrify protesters and the police. If you read reports of the physical attacks they abetted, apparently their plan worked.

They might try to rationalize their conduct as protected by the First and Second Amendments, but let’s not be fooled. Those who came to Charlottesville openly carrying firearms were neither conveying a nonviolent political message, nor engaged in self-defense nor protecting hearth and home.

Plain and simple, public terror is not protected under the Constitution. That has been the case throughout history. And now is the time to look to that history and prohibit open carry, before the next Charlottesville.

Historically, lawmakers have deemed open carry a threat to public safety. Under English common law, a group of armed protesters constituted a riot, and some American colonies prohibited public carry specifically because it caused public terror. During Reconstruction, the military governments overseeing much of the South responded to racially motivated terror (including the murder of dozens of freedmen and Republicans at the 1866 Louisiana Constitutional Convention) by prohibiting public carry either generally or at political gatherings and polling places. Later, in 1886, a Supreme Court decision, Presser v. Illinois, upheld a law forbidding groups of men to “parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized.” For states, such a law was “necessary to the public peace, safety and good order.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/open-carry-charlottesville.html

[guillaumeb]

1. But what about Antonin Scalia and his "discovery" of what he called "original intent"?

The discovery that Scalia justified by eliminating 40% of the original wording, what most called the actual original intent, of the Amendment.

[hack89]

8. Scalia said you can ban open carry

he thought the 2A allows strict regulation of guns - AWBs, registration, high magazine limits are all constitutional according to him (as written in Heller.)

Lack of public support is your problem - not the 2A.

[bullimiami]

2. Ban them all.

[sarisataka]

4. We've Been Told

Literally hundreds of times that no one wants to ban firearms. It is said that is simply an NRA lie promoted by right wing extremists. It is also said that any gun owner who believes that Firearms will be banned is simply a paranoid idiot.

So which is it? Should there be reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms, as there are other rights, or are those who worry about bans actually correct?

[krispos42]

3. More blowback from your side's culture war

Whatever your intentions, you managed to boost gun sales, made the AR-15 insanely popular, and broadened concealed and open carry.

[Decoy of Fenris]

5. "Gun Control" is the most effective form of firearm proliferation known to this country. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Agreed

Also, the term "gun control" is inaccurate, misleading and detrimental to the public good. The "control" terminology implies to many people that actual control (beyond self-control) is really possible. Many restrictionists spread these ideas based on half truths, misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge.

[jimmy the one]

7. historical diffs between open & concealed carry

link: .. in 1886, a Supreme Court decision, Presser v. Illinois, upheld a law forbidding groups of men to “parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized.” For states, such a law was “necessary to the public peace, safety and good order.”

This is not an argument for banning open carry, but an argument for the illegality of the neo-nazi march in charlottesville, as it devolved akin to an armed militia march, which is what presser & his 400 militiamen in chicago were (unorganized militia).

link: Historically, lawmakers have deemed open carry a threat to public safety. Under English common law, a group of armed protesters constituted a riot, and some American colonies prohibited public carry specifically because it caused public terror. During Reconstruction, the military governments overseeing much of the South responded to racially motivated terror by prohibiting public carry either generally or at political gatherings and polling places.

Eh, can't really agree with some of the premises presented. I support banning open carry & shall issue ccw as well, & the article in general, but parts of the above are kinda misleading.
I believe when author write 'a group of armed {english} protesters constituted a riot', he left out 'for illegal purpose' (~1600 coke perhaps).

Historically open carry was allowed, especially in frontier areas due the threat of wandering thugs on horse, indian warfare, animal attacks, & later mexican border issues. Open carry musket with bayonet attached was usually disallowed, esp in cities, but unloaded muskets ok, jefferson advised it (for exercise!).
What was deemed a threat to public safety as mentioned above, were people carrying concealed weapons. The author above includes this when he writes 'prohibited public carry' but implies that open carry was the 'public carry', rather than ccw.
Someone walking into a bar (where guns were not prohibited) with a pistol on his belt, thereby identified himself as a gun owner, & people were aware of that & could monitor him & he would also be aware that he better keep his pistol in his holster or he could be attacked from a blind side.
Someone walking into a bar with a concealed pistol was moreso the problem, since he could suddenly go berserk if he thought he was being cheated at cards, or getting drunk & arguing etc..

Below are several states which had constitutional provisions, most cited were during reconstruction, & I suspect what are being referred to when author wrote this, conflating open carry with concealed carry (in the 'general sense'): During Reconstruction, the military governments overseeing much of the South responded to racially motivated terror by prohibiting public carry either generally or at political gatherings and polling places:

Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).

Louisiana: 1879: "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 abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed."

Montana: {rkba etc} .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889)

NC: 1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

Oklahoma: {rkba} shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. (enacted 1907).

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. (enacted 1876).
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Texas recently cheated, turning the last sentence into justification for their legislature to OK open carry, twisting about 'with a view to prevent crime'. Ha. What would the 1876 texas legislature think now?

[Lokilooney]

9. I'm not being snarky

I have literally no clue what you are trying to covey.

[jimmy the one]

10. heartbroken

Lokilooney I have literally no clue what you are trying to covey

Breaks my heart, mr looney, sniff.

PS: hey, good job with 'literally'.

[Lokilooney]

12. Translation

"Oh shit, I have no clue what I'm talking about either"

[tortoise1956]

33. You have no idea how much this pains me..

But I have to agree with at least part of Jimmy's post. (Yeah, I know, someone just turned on the AC in Hades...)

While I firmly believe in the second amendment, bearing arms does not necessarily mean that you should be able to go out in public with a pistol strapped on your side and an AR-15 slung over one shoulder with no restrictions at all. NO right is completely unlimited - hell, even Scalia noted that in Heller.

So:

As long as there is a Shall-Issue statute that allows law-abiding people to obtain a CCW license (without having to jump through unreasonable hoops to qualify), I am fine with banning open carry of a weapon in municipalities and other government-controlled areas. This,. of course, does not mean that you can't take a weapon to a range or back and forth between private residences.

OK, flame away.

[ileus]

11. Technically OC should discourage harassment and intimidation.

[EL34x4]

13. It wasn't just white supremacists and nazis who were armed at Charlottesville.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/who-were-the-counterprotesters-in-charlottesville.html

[SecularMotion]

14. Sounds like something Trump would say

[EL34x4]

15. And if he said it, he would be correct.

Personally, I think it's a wonderful photo and about time that more progressives embrace our Second Amendment and our Constitutional right to lawfully open carry.

[SecularMotion]

16. Civil Liberties Body ACLU Will No Longer Defend Gun-Carrying Protest Groups

Since its founding during a period of anti-communist paranoia in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has served as a reliable line of defense for those who find their constitutional freedoms under threat.

Sometimes, that means fighting for liberal causes: ACLU lawyers were involved in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the two supreme court victories that underpinned women’s right to abortions in modern America. ANd the ACLU was the only major U.S. organization to speak out against the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

But sometimes, the group has decided to defend people that its liberal supporters find less palatable. In a 1934 pamphlet, entitled Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America? the group defended its choice to stand up for German-American Nazis who wanted to hold meetings in the U.S. “Is it not clear that free speech as a practical tactic, not only as an abstract principle, demands the defense of all who are attacked in order to obtain the rights of any ?” its justification read.

In modern America, the ACLU finds itself in a similar bind. With far-right groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan more visible, and white nationalists grouping under its self-defined banner of the "alt-right," it must decide whether it will defend the rights of such groups to demonstrate and spread their often hateful views.

http://www.newsweek.com/free-speech-hate-speech-aclu-civil-liberties-donald-trump-652050

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Do you support denying a Constitutional right based on being on a government list? The ACLU doesn't:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027947454

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way?redirect=blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america

UPDATE: On June 22nd, the ACLU sent this letter to the Senate opposing Sen. Collins’ (R-Maine) proposed legislation. We had hoped that the Collins Amendment would correct the problems with the earlier Cornyn and Feinstein amendments, but as we describe in the letter, the Collins Amendment would instead cause even more serious problems.

In the wake of the attack on LGBTQ Americans in Orlando, gun control is again at the forefront of the national conversation. It is also the subject of proposed legislation in Congress. We at the ACLU, like many other Americans, are appalled by the Orlando tragedy. We have deep concerns, however, about legislative efforts to regulate the use of guns by relying on our nation’s error-prone and unfair watchlisting system.

That’s why we sent a letter today to the Senate, opposing legislation from Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas), which uses the watchlisting system as a predicate for gun regulation, and also opposing a proposal by Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.), which does not rely on mere presence on watchlists, but nevertheless raises issues of fundamental fairness.

The letter explained to senators the ACLU’s position on gun control:

We believe that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health. At the same time, regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy.

And we explained why we oppose Sen. Cornyn’s legislation, which uses the watchlist system as a starting point for regulating guns. It may sound appealing to regulate firearms by using the government’s blacklisting system for what it calls “known or suspected terrorists,” but we have long experience analyzing the myriad problems with that system, and based on what we know, it needs major overhaul. As we told the senators:

Our nation’s watchlisting system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.

That’s why we have argued that if the government chooses to blacklist people, the standards it uses must be appropriately narrow, the information it relies on must be accurate and credible, and its use of watchlists must be consistent with the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. This is not what the government is doing, though. Instead, as we explained to the Senate using the No Fly List as an example:

The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

It is unsurprising that a system like this is not just bloated, but applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

By relying on the broken watchlist system, Sen. Cornyn’s proposal would further entrench it. Sen. Feinstein’s gun control proposal, on the other hand, has moved away from a previous version that expressly relied on watchlisting standards. Her new proposal does not rely on the mere presence of an individual on a watchlist as a basis for denial of a firearm permit. Still, her new proposal uses vague and overbroad criteria and does not contain necessary due process protections. It also includes a new notification requirement that could result in a “watchlist” that is even broader than any that currently exists — so broad that it would include even people long ago cleared of any wrongdoing by law enforcement.

You should read the full letter for yourself. And then we ask you to call your senators to oppose these proposals. Congress can pass effective gun control laws without relying on unfair and discriminatory watchlists or failing to provide meaningful due process

You were asked the same question going on three years ago, and you studiously ignored it then:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172182000#post7

How 'bout you, Secmo. Do you support denying a Constitutional right based on being on a government list?

I suspect you'll do the same now

[SecularMotion]

20. Their argument against using the no-fly watchlist is that the system is broken.

They are not arguing against using a "watchlist system as a starting point for regulating guns" in every case.

That’s why we have argued that if the government chooses to blacklist people, the standards it uses must be appropriately narrow, the information it relies on must be accurate and credible, and its use of watchlists must be consistent with the presumption of innocence and the right to due process.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. What about states already using those lists to deny gun permits? New Jersey does:

https://ctmirror.org/2015/12/11/n-j-already-using-u-s-watch-lists-to-screen-gun-buyers/

N.J. already using U.S. watch lists to screen gun buyers
By: Mark Pazniokas | December 11, 2015

The New Jersey State Police said Friday they have used the U.S. government’s terrorist watch lists to screen gun permits and purchases for two years under a law signed by Gov. Chris Christie, providing a model for how Connecticut might access the same data.

“It is in effect in New Jersey,” said Capt. Stephen Jones, a spokesman for the department. “New Jersey is the first state to use that as a disqualifier for the ability to purchase firearms, and it has been that way since the time of that signing. We do use that currently. We do have access to that data.”

Malloy, a Democrat who announced Thursday that he is negotiating with the White House over obtaining access to the lists for firearms background checks, said Friday he was generally aware of the law Christie signed Aug. 8, 2013.

Christie, a Republican presidential candidate who visited Connecticut a half-dozen times as the chairman of the Republican Governors Association to oppose Malloy’s re-election in 2014, is an unlikely ally on gun control.

In your view, is a persons' presence on one of these lists, as currently maintained, a valid criteria for
denial of a firearms permit?

Or denial of anything else, for that matter?

[SecularMotion]

22. I agree with the position of the ACLU

if the government chooses to blacklist people, the standards it uses must be appropriately narrow, the information it relies on must be accurate and credible, and its use of watchlists must be consistent with the presumption of innocence and the right to due process.

As far as New Jersey, from the article you've linked to there seems to be disagreement whether NJ even has access to the list and if they do it may only be in use to screen permits and purchases. I can't tell from the article if the list is being used to deny permits or purchases on that basis only.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. I agree with it as well- also, that article is as clear as mud

The NJSP spokesperson didn't make it clear at all what list or lists the NJSP uses, and the article itself
was poorly written and edited

[Hangingon]

28. If the ACLU had defended the 2nd amendment, the NRA would not be the political power it now is.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. Sometimes folks that oppose carrying...

...want those carrying to have a demonstrated need to do so or have a verified reason to fear for their safety. I would suggest the people in photo have met that requirement.

Maybe some folks don't think so but what does that say about them?

[EL34x4]

25. These folks don't oppose carrying. They're proudly pro-gun and progressive.

https://www.redneckrevolt.org

[pablo_marmol]

19. Rednecks! Obviously liberals!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. I'll see your Blair Mountain and raise you a...

Last edited Mon Aug 21, 2017, 08:02 AM - Edit history (1)

...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[pablo_marmol]

27. !

Like

[Tortue]

26. To all my "retrumplican before country" brethren

Can we agree that the brandishing of firearms during a "freedom march" is akin to yelling or using all caps when debating/defending your point of view?

Not sorry here, but did I use too many complicated words, like brandishing?

Like that ding-dang wordy-ass, entirely reasonable Democratic platform you just can't wrap yer two brain cells around?

We get it MAGA head, we know how you got suckered, you're loud and proud. ROLL COAL MF!!

You won't suffer the immediate consequences of your choices, but your kids and grandkids will. Think about it.

For now, you got nuthin' to fear, until the Grand Knight of the tiny Orange Cuck is vilified by, oh wait, that don't make no sense, Britebart Newz? It's so confusing, I know.
It's a-coming.
Wayyyyt for it, wayyyyyyt for it....

And, by all means, paleeeze! Keep your faces in the news! Be loud! Be proud! Just remember, you're not wrecking OUR lives. We know how to rebuild a nation. We've done before, and we'll do it again.
But, trust me, you are so fucked, forever.

BTW - Loved all them camo outfits in Charlottesville, in 1080p.
Some idiot media folks were not sure if you were National Guard.
However, ninety nine point nine percent of us weren't confused.
Situational awareness/intel gathering isn't a state secret.
Keep that in mind.

And to you mommy/daddy/female/fill in the blank... starved, Nazi golf shirt tRumpa-likes Get some fucking counseling while you can. Life is much longer than than your sorry ass, drooling Pavlovian response mechanisms can handle at your stunted developmental stage.

Finally, with all the tenderness, understanding and forgiveness that this nuclear threatened child of the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson era can offer you in these trying circumstances, let me say with all sincerity, that these fucking neo-nazis, white supremacists, subversive militias and their questionably elected republican enablers are not welcome in our future.

I will fight to protect the future for my family from these criminals.

Carry on.
Over.
Definitely not out.

T

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. if you're addressing "retrumplican before country" brethren...

...why are you posting here?

[Kaleva]

30. I would stay away from any event where people were going to open carry

[ManiacJoe]

31. I have no problem with open carry.

Brandishing is an entirely different topic.

[mackdaddy]

32. I agree AR-15s on chest rigs are a bit more than open carry.

These people looked like a patrol going into Faluja.

A heck of a lot more than a pistol in a holster, or even a rifle transported on a shoulder sling.