Open Carry. Because Everyone Else Jumped Off The Bridge.

Tam has a pretty good round up on the various OC issue takes from the Gunnie Blog-o-shpere. 

I’m for Open Carry for 3 reasons.  One is selfish, one is practical (and a tiny bit selfish), and one is Constitutional. 

1) I live on the Texas coast.  It’s fricking HOT and HUMID.  It would be a darn sight easier for me to strap on a full size 1911 or even a darn Walker Colt, for that matter, in an OWB retention holster* than it is to try to cram ANY gun IWB and wear a cover shit. 

Cover shits on the Gulf Coast are as sensible as a bikini on a 6 year old.  Sure there are people who like it, but do you really want to be around them. 

And I don’t want to hear any whinging about, “Oh, but CCW protects everyone while OC only protects those with guns.”  SO WHAT!  If you want me to protect you, you have a very mistaken idea of who I am.  I’m a private citizen who ONLY has rights to protect me and my own.  If the general public wants to enjoy the fruits of protection conferred on one by the carrying of a gun… they can get a gun. 

2) Women really benefit from OC.  Not only does help any goblins with an immediate reassessment of their choice of victims, it also allows women a greater freedom in the choice of weapons they can carry.  The things that make women so womanly and pleasing to the eye are the same things that shove full duty guns up into their armpits.  Even on normal sized women, most compacts and subcompacts have to be relegating to purse carry in order for them to maintain any workable fashion.  Then you take our favorite “Pocket Librarian”; who, due to her diminutive (and not all uncommon) stature, gets to carry a whopping .380. 

OC for women would mean that they could carry the best gun for their protection, not just the gun that fits. 

And now for the selfish part:

‘Nuff said!

Now to those who claim the opposite of the “CCW protects everyone” argument.  Those who think that all common crack heads are trained by ninjas to take out the guys with the weapons first; I would like to ask you one question.  Why do convenience store clerks like to have cops frequent their stores?  I mean, Cops not only have their guns in plain view, but if you drop them ASAP upon entering a Stop-N-Rob for nefarious purposes, you get the added bonus of killing the cops that would have most likely responded to this incident due to proximity. 

“But Dante!  They are cops.  No thug wants to take on the cops!”  Why?  Because they have pretty uniforms?  Because they have radios?  Nope. Because the boys (and girls) in blue have guns and critters KNOW they will be shot at.  Critters, like other forces of nature, like to take the path of least resistance.  Show a critter a cop, he will go the other way.  Show a critter a citizen with a gun, he will also find a least resistant path. 

3) Here’s where I’m going to tick off some of the gun nuts.  But I believe that Open Carry may be THE ONLY true right to bear arms that The Constitutions fully supports.  Or at least, it’s what the framers had in mind when they agreed to it.

Ok… History lesson.  In times past, a weapon was the symbol of a “free” man.  Surfs, slaves, et cetera could not carry arms unless in direct service of the sovereign.  But free men and nobility could and did to show their status.  In fact, carrying some type of weapon concealed was always viewed as a rather underhanded act even by those entitled to arms.  The Questions, “What were you trying to hide?  What were you up to?” were always asked and the answer was always, “Nothing good!”

This reality was not lost on the colonists who grew up in a land were guns were not only a symbol of power but a simple utilitarian means of survival.  They were the equalizer against tyrants and nature.

Americans, being freed men owing no oath to a sovereign, should carry their arms openly to be a symbol of that freedom but also to be ready to defend themselves against nature and man.  Being polite and civilized back then meant putting all your cards on the table.  Propping your rifle up next you at the table would have been just common decency. 

Now that’s not to say NO ONE carried concealed, for many surely did.  But the attitude of the framers would have been to look askance at the practice since it was underhanded; which raises the question about its Constitutional protection, but ONLY in so much as it MAY be subject to some restrictions where as OC should be unquestioned and unlicensed in any state. 

What I’m trying to say is that CCW permits may be just fine since the Framers found it distasteful but it was a reality.  I’m not sure they would have any issue with the state vetting those who carry concealed to know that their intentions are good and to allow an officer of the peace to know that as well.  Where as any laws against OC should be found unconstitutional because the attitude of the Framers was that ANY citizen is a free man and can display that with a show of arms. 

So if NY State wants to have a May Issue CCW license… Fine.  But it’s a moot point since any citizen should be able to heater up in Central Park should he or she so choose.  It’s also right a proper that Alaska can say, “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em!” to anyone who wants to carry concealed since it’s the state’s right to govern that.

Now this is not a final argument.  Those who disagree with me have very valid points.  But I think it does show that while we can argue about Concealed Carry, there is NO QUESTION given the historicity and context of The Constitution that OC is off the table on any compromise and MUST be allowed if we are to be true to the intentions of The Founders.  But when has that stopped us in the past.

* Of course it would be “Cowboy Tactical” for the Walker with a little leather thong loop over the hammer spur. 
Advertisements

4 Responses to “Open Carry. Because Everyone Else Jumped Off The Bridge.”


  1. 1 Sailorcurt October 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    I completely agree with you…even on your last point.

    The context got all skewed when it came to be considered “uncivilized” to carry a firearm. Now we consider it polite to hide it, but back in the day, only scoundrels with ill intent had any need to disguise the fact that they were armed.

    If I mean no harm, why would I need to hide it? If I were a criminal, do you think I’d be carrying my gun out in plain sight?

  2. 2 Guy S October 17, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Well thought out argument. One exception (proving the rule, I suppose; though this may have been more of a made up scenario of the “penny dreadfulls” and Hollywood screen writers – vice reality, but still …) for CCW, would be the derringer. Usually, tucked away in purse, undergarment, or glove/boot, by females as their “hole card”, should things get dicey.

    Granted, there are as many women who are (or desire to be) as skilled in the use of firearms as men. And will use, and are comfortable with, the largest caliber weapon they can get their hands on. And they (My wife, as an example, given the option, is very pro open carry.) would have no problem with open carry.

    My concern, is if we restrict in any manner, the issuing, use, or conveyance of arms, than we start (despite good intent of the laws) down the slippery slope toward more regulation. After all, that is what got us to where we are now. Why not leave it to the (proper) plain an simple Second amendment, as far as it goes, and leave it at that. The character (and intent) of one who conceals and carries will be found out (and if negative, dealt with) soon enough, one way or another.

    And as an aside, like the layout of your site. Came here via Baby Troll Blog, and will be returning (and adding you to my sidebar ASAP).

    • 3 dantesfiringrange October 19, 2009 at 5:25 pm

      Sorry for the late approval of your post. I was pretty busy all weekend and the Moblie App that connects to the blog is for little other than posting.

      On the Derringer issue. I think you are right in that there is some exaggeration of the use of those, but if you look at who they were intended for (Again… we have to sift through some serious historical amplification) there was always a wink and a nod for the “ladies” who would need such protection. Even if they were honest sorts by trade and personality, the sneaky nature of the pocket pistol has always carried some “stigma”.

      And do not get me wrong, I think the right of human to carry the best defensive weapon for the task in the best way is God given and not up for debate. My only questions are what were the Framers thinking. And there is a possibility that they were OK with concealed carry being limited in some ways BY THE STATES (NOT FED.GOV). I don’t agree that the limitations should be onerous (if a state chooses to have any at all), but that it for the people in Non-free states to deal with by electing people with some common sense or voting with their feet and moving to a state that actually upholds the constitution.

      The problem as we have it now is that The Constitution means nothing anymore. I’d be all for limited Concealed Carry and unrestricted open carry if that was the will of The Framers. The Gotcha for the Anti-2A crowd is that they could win their coveted bans on concealed carry, but loose Open Carry and ultimately all other restrictions if the true Law of the Land was followed with a historical or Originalist look at The Constitution.

  3. 4 Guy S October 19, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    No disagreement here. It is my personal belief, if we adhered to the Constitution, as written (and or intended), this country and it’s citizens would be a lot better off at the individual level. (Indeed, most so called minorities/victims would have more control over their lives and personal well being and chances for success and or general acceptance. All would be “equal” under the law(s).

    And better off in being able to address just about any situation with out being concerned or bothered by interference from some government agency or another. Whether it be at a personal level, or in the running of a business.

    As soon as the words “Shall not be infringed” had the word “but” or “except” added on (either directly or implied) we went sharply downhill from there, regarding the bending, twisting, and mutilating, of the Constitution and be extension, our rights.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Dante…

Conservative, educated, understands history, distrusts government, distrusts politicians, dislikes pop-culture, and carries a firearm. In short, I'm what The Framers of The Constitution were counting on and everything your government wants you to fear most.

The only thing I don’t have to complain about is some GI taking up space in my living room. I’ll let you know about the Civil Courts if someone ever owes more than $20 to me. ---If you didn’t get that one; sue your Civics or US History Teacher.


Your shortcut to Acute Dyspepsia
Any Spelling, Grammatical, or Typographic errors are the result of my keyboard, public school Elementary education, or Secret Government Ninjas and not fault of the author and his flying through his posts at lunch time. If you see any errors, ping me and I will correct them. Ping me often enough, and I will make you my editor.
dantes firing range -A T- hotmail.com
Remove the spaces and convert the -AT- to... you know the drill. In VB Script that's: Value = replace (replace ("dantes firing range -A T- hotmail.com", " ",""), "-AT-", chr(64))

For The Record


%d bloggers like this: