Openly Armed = Frequently Hassled

In Ohio, where the state constitution declares that "the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security," supporters of that right waged a long battle to overturn an 1859 ban on carrying concealed firearms. A constitutional challenge was successful at the trial and appeals court levels but rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court. The state legislature finally enacted a nondiscretionary carry permit law in 2004. Since then anyone 21 or older with a clean record who passes a safety course has been eligible for a permit. A recent story in The Columbus Dispatch notes a fact that was widely overlooked during the debate over concealed carry in Ohio: Openly carrying a gun was never illegal in Ohio, and it does not require a permit, although people who tote rifles or strap pistols to their belts in public can expect "some unwanted attention from police officers":

Philip Turner, 30, discovered that in July when he walked from his Hilliard apartment to his parked truck wearing a gun on his belt. At the time, Turner worked protecting banks' ATMs as they were serviced and delivering diamonds to jewelry stores.

An undercover agent with the Ohio Investigative Unitthe police agency that enforces the state's alcohol, tobacco and food-stamp laws -- saw the gun and quickly ordered him against his truck with his hands on his head.

"He came up and treated me like a felon for absolutely no reason at all," Turner said. "There wasn't even a suspicious action on my part to warrant him taking this action against me. Had I been out waving a gun around the parking lot, (then) yeah."

After being detained for about 30 minutes, and after Hilliard police arrived at the agent's request, Turner was released without charges. An internal investigation that concluded this week found that neither Agent Timothy Gales, who had stopped Turner, nor his partner, Betty Ford, did anything wrong.

However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety. As a result, more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend a mandatory refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next couple of months, she said.

In addition to avoiding hassles from police officers who are ignorant of the law, concealed carry offers the advantages of not alarming passers-by and of keeping criminals uncertain about who is packing. The latter feature means that even the unarmed can benefit from the potential deterrent effect. Whether that effect has had a measurable impact on crime remains controversial in Ohio as elsewhere. The violent crime rate in Ohio, which had been declining pretty steadily since the early 1990s, continued the downward trend in 2004, the year concealed carry permits were first issued, went up slightly in 2005, then down slightly in 2006, the most recent year for which the Bureau of Justice Statistics has data.

[Thanks to Dan Gifford for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Episiarch||

    Expecting cops to know the law?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Taktix®||

    As a result, more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend a mandatory refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next couple of months, she said.

    The fact that something like this is happening as a result makes me hopeful...

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure that most cops don't know that women can legal walk around topless here in Ohio, too.

  • ||

    dammit, legally

  • Abdul||

    Ok, I'm all in favor of gun-ownership. I own one and have CCW's in two states. But am I the only person here who finds people who insist upon open-carry when there's no self-evident reason for it just a little bit weird? I mean, it makes sense if you're a security guard (like the guy in the article), or a cowboy or something. But really, just because the store is called Target doesn't mean you need to carry a gun to go there.

  • ||

    The fact that somebody is walking around with a gun might warrant a closer look by a cop. Does he have specks of spittle on his chin? Odd red stains on his clothes? Is he sweating profusely? Running? Panicky? How about the people in the building he just came out of - are they running and panicky? Maybe - maybe - it would be worthwhile to walk up to him and politely ask why he's wearing a gun and if he has a firearms permit, depending on where and when.

    A reasonable cop walking the beat probably should observe things like that, but putting him up against the car with his hands over his head? C'mon.

  • ||

    But am I the only person here who finds people who insist upon open-carry when there's no self-evident reason for it just a little bit weird?

    Yes. It's just you.

  • ||

    The key word being "here," Abdul.

  • ||

    Several years ago a serial killer ways shooting people in a area I hunted and fished in Ohio.He only shot unarmed fishermen and bow hunters.This is a large area with many lakes and access roads.Our game warden suggested carrying a pistol openly since it was legal and he shot only those who couldn't shoot back.I fished with a 357 mag on my hip for years.

  • squarooticus||

    Abdul:

    But really, just because the store is called Target doesn't mean you need to carry a gun to go there.

    You're conflating two issues: one is whether open carry is justified for plebes...er, normal citizens from a practical standpoint; the other is whether any form of carry is justified for the same set of people.

    Carrying a gun into Target is perfectly reasonable: you never know when you might need a gun, so it's better to always have one and not need it than to not have one and wish you had. Carrying a gun openly in Target may be less reasonable.

    I'm not going to pass judgment on open carry because I think it is useful for different reasons than CCW (e.g., open carry by lots of people has the potential to make bearing arms seem more "normal" over time). I personally don't open carry because I live in MA and doing so would get my "right" to bear arms shitcanned forever, but if I lived in a place that allowed open carry I would consider doing it occasionally for the aforementioned reason.

  • ||

    I am in favor of open carry and opposed to conceal carry. The reason is, I'm afraid of people that feel the need to carry guns around doing their day to day. I want to know who those people are so I can avoid them.

    I don't allow guns in my house. I hope we all agree It's my right to dictate what goes on in my own home. So is their any sympathy for my position? Or do I need to frisk everybody at the threshold?

  • Taktix®||

    But really, just because the store is called Target doesn't mean you need to carry a gun to go there.

    Zing! You and Sinbad should go on tour.

    Watch out for snipers!

  • ed||

    I fished with a 357 mag on my hip for years

    How's that work for carp?

  • squarooticus||

    I am in favor of open carry and opposed to conceal carry. The reason is, I'm afraid of people that feel the need to carry guns around doing their day to day. I want to know who those people are so I can avoid them.

    Thus guaranteeing that you'll take note of all the law abiding gun owners unlikely to do you harm, and blissfully ignore all the criminals who are not going to obey a CCW ban in the first place.

    Is there such a thing as a "feel good" fallacy?

    So is their any sympathy for my position?

    Sympathy? Not sure. I find it illogical. But understanding? Sure.

    Or do I need to frisk everybody at the threshold?

    Yep.

  • Episiarch||

    The reason is, I'm afraid of people that feel the need to carry guns around doing their day to day. I want to know who those people are so I can avoid them.

    Try not to wet your pants.

  • Neu Mejican||

    concealed carry offers the advantages of not alarming passers-by and of keeping criminals uncertain about who is packing. The latter feature means that even the unarmed can benefit from the potential deterrent effect.

    Sorry, but that is just so much bullshit.

    Sure concealed carry has the advantage of not alarming passers by, and it does mean that others (even criminals) don't know you have the gun, but the deterrent effect is so much pixie dust.

    Criminals tend to be risk takers.
    If you want to deter them make it obvious you are packing and dangerous.

    You are talking about someone willing to risk jail time or death by cop here...

  • ||

    I don't know about carp,but it worked well on copperheads and wild dogs.I even took a deer with it once.

  • ||

    However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety. As a result, more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend a mandatory refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next couple of months, she said.

    I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Or does that only apply to those of us not in law enforcement (pun intended)?

  • ed||

    Maybe we could force them to sew big yellow stars on their jackets. Gun flair.

  • Abdul||

    Zing! You and Sinbad should go on tour.

    That might be the cruellest thing ever said to an H&R commenter.

  • TrappedEastOfTheBigMuddy||

    @article

    An internal investigation that concluded this week found that neither Agent Timothy Gales, who had stopped Turner, nor his partner, Betty Ford, did anything wrong.

    However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety.



    From which we conclude that in the Department of Public Safety, walking around (with guns, none-the-less) not knowing your job is not "doing anything wrong".

    Glad we cleared that up.

    But don't worry, folks. These men are highly trained professionals.

    It says so right on the package.

  • ||

    Warren,

    If you don't want people in you home with a gun, just let people know and they will not come into you home with a gun (of course they also have the right not to come into your house at all), becuase they are LAW ABIDING citizens. The problem you are going to run into is that the burglar that visits your house will be happy to know that he will not encounter an armed citizen. Good luck with that.

  • shecky||

    Let's see... openly carrying a firearm where such a practice is generally uncommon, even if legal, will get some unwanted attention from the likes of cops. Well, duh!

    Believe it or not, California allows open carry of fixed blade knives, without restriction on the size of the knife. But it strains reason to think one could stroll town about with a machete hanging from one's belt and not gain unwanted attention.

    People in this day and age still get unwanted attention just for having dark skin. Is it really surprising that, even if legal, open carry could draw similar attention?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Warren,

    Concealed weapons do make it difficult to enforce your property rights.

    But your property rights do not supersede the rights of an individual coming onto your property.

    Finding a work around to that situation ain't straightforward.

    A community decision that concealed carry is wrong, however, provides a (incomplete) practical solution.

    But as has been pointed out, those that will ignore the law, are likely the most dangerous in the first place.

  • ||

    I fished with a 357 mag on my hip for years

    How's that work for carp?


    Dynamite works best for carp.

  • ||

    How does a person's rights to come on my property trump my property rights?I have a no trespassing sigh at the foot of the drive.I don't think you have that right.

  • ||

    If Kerry Howley thinks the idea of women selling their eggs is so great, why doesn't she try it herself?

    Oh, never mind.

  • ||

    But your property rights do not supersede the rights of an individual coming onto your property.

    An individual has no right to come onto Warren's property without Warren's permission. He may condition that permission however he darn well pleases.

  • ||

    Neu Mejican,
    First, most criminals are lazy cowards. The only way they attack armed individuals is if they have absolutely no choice or they are going to get a lot more out of it than minor robbery or burglary will get them.
    Second, Colorado and Louisiana (the only two states I have studied, allow any property owner (residential or business) to post signs that state that guns are not allowed and any law abiding CCW permit holder is NOT allowed to carry in that property. No, CCW rights do not supercede property rights.
    Please do not attack CCW with garbage like that just becuase you do not agree with it.

  • Guy Montag||

    So is their any sympathy for my position?

    No.

    As for this whole story, it is a bit of a replay of something that happened at Champps in Reston, VA in 2004.

    The Fairfax County police all had to go through reeducation after they arrested several folks carrying open in a bar, days after the VA law was changed to allow this. The proper solution, of course, was for the management to ask the lawful patrons to leave or put up a "no guns allowed" sign. Instead, they called cops who did not know the law any better than they did and much sillieness ensued, to include several unneeded arrests.

  • Guy Montag||

    Folks, in "Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign" world of the Socialistic Left, we have no property rights. Thank goodness that utopia is not reality in America, yet.

  • bill||

    From Neal Stephenson's Crytonomicon:

    ...They are having an energetic and very happy conversation -- though it looks a bit forced -- because, to a man, they are carrying long weapons out in plain sight. One of them has a hunting rifle, and each of the others is slinging a rudimentary-looking gun with a banana clip sticking out the side.

    This scene, not surprisingly, has caught the attention of the police, who have surrounded these four with squad cars, and who are standing at the ready with rifles and shotguns. It is an oddity of the law in many jurisdictions that, while carrying (say) a concealed one-shot .22 derringer requires a license, openly carrying (e.g.) a big game rifle is perfectly legal. Concealed weapons are outlawed or at least heavily regulated, and unconcealed ones are not. So a lot of Secret Admirers -- who tend to be gun nuts -- have taken to going around conspicuously armed as a way of pointing out the absurdity of those rules. Their point is this: who gives a shit about concealed weapons anyway, since they are only useful for defending oneself against assaults by petty criminals, which almost never happens? The real reason the Constitution provides for the right to bear arms is defending oneself against oppressive governments, and when it comes to that, your handgun is close to useless. So (according to these guys) if you are going to assert your right to keep and bear arms you should do it openly by packing something really big.

  • ||

    Folks, in "Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign" world of the Socialistic Left'

    Just die already, Baby Boomer.

    Get in the box! Get in the fucking box!!! Nobody gives a crap who you hated on campus in 1970!

  • Fluffy||

    I also have to wonder aloud how an investigation can conclude an officer did nothing wrong when an individual was apprehended for something that is not a crime.

    If this officer went around pulling his gun on people playing frisbee in the park, and demanding that they put their hands up and consent to search and detention, because he was under the misapprehension that frisbees were illegal, would an investigation find that he did nothing wrong?

  • thoreau||

    Get in the box! Get in the fucking box!!! Nobody gives a crap who you hated on campus in 1970!

    I sometimes wonder if residual hatred of hippies is part of the reason why we couldn't get more opposition to the war in Iraq.

  • Episiarch||

    Dr. T, that is a very valid question, to which the answer is probably at least partially "yes".

  • ed||

    Anti-intellectual resistance is futile.

  • ||

    I sometimes wonder if residual hatred of hippies is part of the reason why we couldn't get more opposition to the war in Iraq.

    Jonah Goldberg came out an admitted that his support for invading Iraq was based on this.

    It is also, beyond any reasonable doubt, the reason pot hasn't been legalized.

  • Guy Montag||

    I sometimes wonder if residual hatred of hippies is part of the reason why we couldn't get more opposition to the war in Iraq.

    Probably has more to do with the vast majority of Americans disagreeing with you (no matter what rigged questions are used in the polls that you like) than anything else.

  • Taktix®||

    An individual has no right to come onto Warren's property without Warren's permission. He may condition that permission however he darn well pleases.

    Unless he's smoking a cigarette...

    *ducks*

  • ||

    Mmm.

    Maybe those polls were all taken in the "Sign Sign Eveywhere a Sign" world of the Socialist Left.

    Guy-line Keal doesn't know a single person who opposed the Iraq War.

  • kinnath||

    When I moved from Iowa to Phoenix, it was a moderate shock the first time I went to a grocery store and saw a guy with a big pistol on his hip reaching into the cooler for a gallon of milk. But I got used to it very quickly.

    Open carry doesn't bother me in the slightest, cause I can see the doofus and avoid him. With concealed carry, I am dependent on the state to verify that I should be able to trust a stranger to have a gun that I don't know about.

  • Neu Mejican||

    joe,

    But your property rights do not supersede the rights of an individual coming onto your property.

    An individual has no right to come onto Warren's property without Warren's permission. He may condition that permission however he darn well pleases.


    Sort of...property rights are not the most basic right. They are derived from the right to life and liberty.

    John West,
    First, most criminals are lazy cowards...

    Your point is tangential to my point, but supports the idea that the best way to deter them is to carry openly.

    No, CCW rights do not supercede property rights.

    I never claimed so.

    In fact, you would need to build a case for me that there is a "right to concealed carry" (not that it couldn't be done) before we could begin discussing whether the property rights of the homeowner take precedent over the property rights of the gun owner (which is what the right to carry is predicated upon whether you carry concealed or openly).

    It is a political error to make every issue about "rights" rather than a discussion of the best policy.

  • thoreau||

    joe-

    So maybe the best campaign for sane drug policy would involve somebody beating up a hippie while advocating for sane policy.

    OK, so the beating might not be exactly sane, but isn't that sort of the point? Only Nixon can go to China, only somebody who's insane in the membrane can advocate for sane policy, etc.

    OK, maybe "insane in the membrane" brings its own credibility problems on this issue. Hmm...

  • Neu Mejican||

    In otherwords folks, does Warren have a right to KNOW whether or not I have a gun when I am on his property?

    And before anyone gets worked up into a lather.

    My position is that open carry is the best practice for deterrence...I am not taking a position on whether or not you have a right to hide your weapon.

    I am not proposing a law.
    I am not proposing repeal of a law.

  • Episiarch||

    OK, maybe "insane in the membrane" brings its own credibility problems on this issue. Hmm...

    Just have Cypress Hill beating up the hippie while advocating for sane drug policy and it'll be fine.

  • ||

    I don't know...did you ever see one of those ads that are so funny you can't remember what the product is?

    But your suggestion does raise the question: is that guy from the Young Ones still alive?

  • ||

    My position is that open carry is the best practice for deterrence

    At the micro-level (that is, deterring attacks near the guy with the gun), probably true.

    At a societal level, probably not. Concealed carry makes attacking someone a potentially catastrophic risk, one that you have no way of managing if you don't know who is carrying. Unmanageable catastrophic risks tend to make people very risk averse, and hence less likely to attack anyone.

  • Neu Mejican||

    joe,

    An individual has no right to come onto Warren's property without Warren's permission. He may condition that permission however he darn well pleases.

    What does this mean for the civil rights act? I am thinking title II.

  • ||

    Kinnath- "Open carry doesn't bother me in the slightest, cause I can see the doofus and avoid him. With concealed carry, I am dependent on the state to verify that I should be able to trust a stranger to have a gun that I don't know about."

    Would he still be a doofus if some strange shit went down and he saved your puss ass? Then you say your trusting of the STATE to verify that a CCW holder is ok to be a CCW permit holder. This is the same state that had employees not familiar with their own laws. Yet this would make you feel safer?

    Here in Louisiana we can open carry w/o a permit and concealed carry w/permit. Regardless of whether my gun is inside my pants or hanging off my belt so long as you don't do anything to myself or anyone around me you are just as safe either way.

    To all of you against gun rights and self defense first I say get fucked. Second I can only hope that if the shit hits the fan the lunatic with the gun shoots at you first so I have more time to draw my weapon and defend myself. Why should I care if you get gunned down anyway, when you didn't seem to care to begin with!

  • ||


    If this officer went around pulling his gun on people playing frisbee in the park, and demanding that they put their hands up and consent to search and detention, because he was under the misapprehension that frisbees were illegal, would an investigation find that he did nothing wrong?


    Probably. In fact, I can think of very few circumstances where an investigation would find the pigs every do anything wrong...except maybe ticketing a clout heavy official?

  • Neu Mejican||

    RC Dean

    Crime happens at the micro-level.

    Attacking someone is always a potentially catastrophic risk.

    Those who engage in the activity are risk takers in that regard.

    They think that they can manage that catastrophic risk, but may think twice if they see the gun.

  • ||

    N.M., Taktix,

    Places of public accommodation, of course, introduce a complicating factor.

  • ||

    I agree with Dee.

    If you aren't so consumed by the fear of violent death lurking around every corner that you feel the need to carry a gun wherever you go, it's because you are a puss.

    Real men, who are brave, are convinced that the only thing between them and certain, violent death is the continual posession of a firearm.

  • Neb Okla||

    For a visual example of what may happen to you in Ohio if you carry a firearm lawfully, just watch the video of the arrest of Dan Sayers in Oregon, OH:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LoXiZO6G6g

  • kinnath||

    Would he still be a doofus if some strange shit went down and he saved your puss ass?

    The only story I saw during the 7 years I lived in Az where a civilian used a hand gun during a robbery of a business, the good citizen shot and killed an innocent bystander.

    Then you say your trusting of the STATE to verify that a CCW holder is ok to be a CCW permit holder. This is the same state that had employees not familiar with their own laws. Yet this would make you feel safer?

    You misread my post. I implied that CCW as a problem, because I could not, in fact, trust the state to correctly verify that the individual applying for a permit was truly trustworthy.

    I have no problem with open carry. I have mixed emotions about concealed carry.

  • ||

    joe gives a shoutout to The Young Ones! joe, for a commie pinko, you're ok.

  • kinnath||

    f*cking italics . . I know better than that

  • Charles||

    So is there like a service that links random websites whenever they mention a particular item, sort of like a Digg for single-issue crazies? Is that how Dee got here?

  • Alice Bowie||

    People carring guns (especially cops) should be harrassed.

  • ||

    The most disturbing part of that story was the quotes by the CPD sergeant at the end.

  • Rimfax||

    Chris Potter nailed it. For us, ignorance would not spare us from a prosecution and conviction. For a police officer, ignorance spares him from even the minutest consequences of a false arrest.

  • GG||

    If you aren't so consumed by the fear of violent death lurking around every corner that you feel the need to carry a gun wherever you go, it's because you are a puss.

    I dunno, joe. Ted "consumed by fear" Turner made a pretty convincing case for the need to carry guns around in the near future.

    Turner: Global Warming Will Cause Mass Cannibalism

    The smart money's on Ted just finished reading McCarthy's The Road. (Which, btw, is coming to a theater near you.)

  • ||

    Matt Welch 09/17/2001 08:12 PM


    "The biggest question facing Americans and other decent people is how the civilized world and its strongest country should respond to this mass murder. I, for one, advocate a Global War to abolish terrorism."

    It is good to see Welch crap on McCain, but the people I trust to think about foreign policy had a slightly different reaction to 9/11.

  • Guy Montag||

    GG,

    In a world of mass cannibalism will it be legal for women to sell their eggs for food?

  • TallDave||

    "some unwanted attention from police officers":

    Yeah, the training on this is pretty bad. Maybe there should be laws against harassing gun owners. Perhaps even a constitutional amendment...

    GG,

    My favorite is Dr. James Lovelock:

    China Secretly Preparing To Move To Africa

    "So I think the Chinese will go to Africa. They are already there, preparing a new continent - the Chinese industrialists who claim to be out there mining minerals are just there on a pretext of preparing for the big move. "

    It's the good people at Rand McNally who will suffer the most.

  • Global Warming Survivor circa ||

    Gimme an order of ovaries over easy, a side order of long pig bacon, and one of those St. Patrick's day Soylent Green shakes.

  • Imperialist||

    Yesterday, I was trolling that Africa's problems would go away if we replaced the black people with white or yellow people. Great to see that plan is already in the works.

  • ||

    You just know that any story that begins "Ted Turner said" is going to be great.

  • squarooticus||

    The only story I remember from the 7 years I lived in Az where a civilian used a hand gun during a robbery of a business, the good citizen shot and killed an innocent bystander.

    FYP.

    Besides, this is a pretty weak argument anyway: your reading about them or not has zero impact on or correlation with the frequency of defensive uses of a firearm. They occur, and are well-documented.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Citizen Nothing - joe shouted out to "The Young Ones" is actually "Rik". Notice how he always jumps in on poetry day?

    Just kidding, joe. Maybe this will make up for it.

    As far as having a non-hippie spokesperson for NORML, that would be a good idea. I always thought Kevin Zeese was pretty square looking, but R. Lee Ermey would be even better, especially if he appeared on ORLY.

  • ||

    Attacking someone is always a potentially catastrophic risk.

    Not if you are sure no one who can intervene is carrying, and you are bigger/stronger than your victim.

    They think that they can manage that catastrophic risk, but may think twice if they see the gun.

    If they know they can see any gun that is likely to be used to intervene, they "manage" the risk by choosing a different victim.

    If they know they can't see any gun that is likely to be used to intervene, they just might manage the risk by picking a different line of work.

  • ||

    Real men, who are brave, are convinced that the only thing between them and certain, violent death is the continual posession of a firearm.

    Some of us think we have personal responsibility for our own safety, and some responsibility for the safety of others. Some of us would not like to be caught in a situation where we cannot meet our responsibilities because we are unarmed.

    Others prefer to trust in the minions of the State.

  • Guy Montag||

    RCD,

    You know, you are arguing with people whose objections amount to fashion disagreements, don't you?

  • kinnath||

    Dear square, please follow the thread.

    I responded to Dee's rant:

    "Would he still be a doofus if some strange shit went down and he saved your puss ass?"

    There are lots of people walking around Az with handguns in plain sight. I have no problem with this. In fact, I do believe that those people have some marginal improvement in their personal safety.

    However, there was only one case in the seven years (that I remember) where one armed citizen intervened into the robbery of business by a third party.

    In that case, a jackass followed the criminal into the street and emptied a clip at a fleeing vehicle. Net result, one dead citizen on the street with no connection to the business.

    I believe that every individual has a right to carry for personal protection. I even buy the concept that concealed carry reduces overall crime rates for the reasons indicated above.

    But when it comes down to an average citizen carrying a gun and coming to my resuce, it's just a coin toss.

  • ||

    Oh, please, RC.

    Do you walk around with a heart defibrillator? Heart attacks are several hundred times more common than violent crime.

    Bandages? Splints? Anti-septics? No?

    No. You sit around and wait for the minions of the state in those threats to personal safety.

    It's only the very rare threat posed by violent crime that motivates your wonderful, self-reliant, individualist altruism.

    But Lord knows this has nothing to do with an irrational estimation of threat levels.

  • Steve Verdon||

    In addition to avoiding hassles from police officers who are ignorant of the law, concealed carry offers the advantages of not alarming passers-by and of keeping criminals uncertain about who is packing. The latter feature means that even the unarmed can benefit from the potential deterrent effect.



    Hey expecting cops, government employees or liberals to understand the positive externality argument here is asking a Hell of a lot. Might as well ask them to fly to the moon by flapping thier arms.

  • ||

    """Attacking someone is always a potentially catastrophic risk.

    Those who engage in the activity are risk takers in that regard.

    They think that they can manage that catastrophic risk, but may think twice if they see the gun."""

    I agree, and to manage their risk accordingly, they will go find someone not wearing a firearm.

  • ||

    Just admit that you carry a gun because you think they're kewl. Nothing wrong with that.

    Spare us the Rambo fantasies about how would been all, like, Ka-POW if you were on the Virginia Tech campus.

    Fashion accessory is right. Like the guy who drives a Hummer from the subdivision to the office park, then pats himself on the back for being self-reliant and ready to help strangers.

    Dude likes his Hummer, and the rest is just bullcrap.

  • Episiarch||

    joe feel manly by implying that others feel manly for carrying a gun.

    I guess joe is just extrapolating from his own feeling of manliness through external action.

  • ||

    It's funny; there was exactly one post proclaiming superior manliness on this thread; it was from a conservative.

    Nothing from Episiarch.

    Then, when I mock him for it, Episiarch is suddenly so concerned about people posing as manly-men in the comment threads that he...take a shot at me for mocking somebody for posing as a manly-man in the comment threads.

    Same as it ever was.

  • ||

    Second, Colorado and Louisiana (the only two states I have studied, allow any property owner (residential or business) to post signs that state that guns are not allowed and any law abiding CCW permit holder is NOT allowed to carry in that property.

    Same in Texas, with the unintentionally funny Penal Code Section 30.06

    Check out Open Carry forum for more stories of legal open carry silliness

  • ||

    """But when it comes down to an average citizen carrying a gun and coming to my resuce, it's just a coin toss."""

    True, the same could be said about calling the cops. If the cop is a better shot than your neighbor is a coin toss.

    """In that case, a jackass followed the criminal into the street and emptied a clip at a fleeing vehicle. Net result, one dead citizen on the street with no connection to the business."""

    Jackass indeed. Citizens should follow deadly force rules. When the guy was fleeing, the jackass was no longer in danger. Some states, and cities do not allow their officers to fire while merely in pursuit. In NYC the NYPD is not allowed to fire into a fleeing car, but tell that to Sean Bell.

  • AnonCowHerd||

    Server squirrels broke my link -

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com

  • Neu Mejican||

    R C Dean | April 2, 2008, 3:33pm | #

    I said: Attacking someone is always a potentially catastrophic risk.

    RC D: Not if you are sure no one who can intervene is carrying, and you are bigger/stronger than your victim.

    Jens Pulver is on line two for RC Dean.
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1550225677/reasonmagazineA/

    I have known many dangerous individuals that do not appear dangerous. Some would snatch your gun and beat you senseless with it if you drew on them. That risk is always there.

    I said: They think that they can manage that catastrophic risk, but may think twice if they see the gun.

    RC D: If they know they can see any gun that is likely to be used to intervene, they "manage" the risk by choosing a different victim.

    Exactly why I advocate open carry.
    They will also choose not to attack is someone in the vicinity has a gun. The deterrent shield of open-carry protects non-carriers more effectively than the imagined pixie dust shield of concealed carry.

    If they know they can't see any gun that is likely to be used to intervene, they just might manage the risk by picking a different line of work.

    Concealed carry laws, turning bad guys into good since 1993...that one made me laugh outloud.

  • Episiarch||

    take a shot at me for mocking somebody for posing as a manly-man in the comment threads

    joe, just proclaim victory now, and make some comments using "pwned", and you will have shown conclusively, to everyone, that you mocking someone for posing as a manly-man/tuff gai isn't ironic. Really.

  • kinnath||

    Jackass indeed. Citizens should follow deadly force rules. When the guy was fleeing, the jackass was no longer in danger.

    Said jackass was convicted and sentenced. Didn't go over well with the general community.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Repeat after me...

    Criminals respond to obvious signals, not subtle ones.

    The "this car insured by Smith and Wesson" or "beware of dog" effect on crime is well studied and well understood.

    If I am a risk taker willing to risk jail or death by cop, I will choose the less risky behavior, not the no-risk behavior.

    If I am ballsy enough to use violence to get your wallet, and I don't see a gun, I will risk the attack.

    Here's some logic for you to try on.

    A criminal who is used to pulling the gun and demanding the wallet learns of the concealed carry law. Now he shoots first just in case you have a gun he can't see.

  • Guy Montag||

    AnonCowHerd,

    Virginia allows that too. Not sure about Tennessee, but that might be another one.

  • kinnath||

    True, the same could be said about calling the cops. If the cop is a better shot than your neighbor is a coin toss.

    It is a rare case when the cops are actually present when the criminal is brandishing a weapon at you. The cops are normally there to clean up the mess afterwards.

  • ||

    Same as it ever was.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Risk management for muggers.

    In open carry state, look for the gun, choose the victim without one.

    In concealed carry states, use extreme force to incapacitate your victim in case they have a hidden gun.

  • Guy Montag||

    In concealed carry states, use extreme force to incapacitate your victim in case they have a hidden gun.

    Ah, so that is why I can't turn on the news in VA or TN without endless coverage of people being beaten silly for $10 and if they had a gun it was stolen! Maybe they need to add another half hour to the local news to cover all the ones we don't hear about.

  • Episiarch||

    Same as it ever was.

    joe must be listening to the Talking Heads today.

    And you may ask yourself
    How do I work this?
    And you may ask yourself
    Where is that large automobile?
    And you may tell yourself
    This is not my beautiful house!
    And you may tell yourself
    This is not my beautiful wife!

  • Guy Montag||

    Word to gun haters: Hate is not a family value, unless you are in the Manson family.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Guy,

    I didn't say that was how it worked out.
    I was just providing the equivalently poor logic to counter the pixie dust concealed carry is a deterrent argument.

    Most studies of the issue seem to show no detectable impact on crime...one way or the other. Similar to the gun control issue, the overly simplified models don't pan out when the rubber hits the road.

  • ||

    Ah, so that is why I can't turn on the news in VA or TN without endless coverage of people being beaten silly for $10 and if they had a gun it was stolen!

    That cuts both ways. We're not innundated with stories about widespread crime in states with strict gun laws, either.

    The people talking about how we need to DO SOMETHING about gun laws - on both sides - or the scary bad men with guns will surely slaughter us all are either vastly overestimating the scope of the problem they're proposing to solve, or scaremongering.

  • ||

    I've seen the estimate that, in concealed carry states, 1% of the adult population will be walking around legally armed.

    So, someone who sticks guns in people's faces and takes their wallets so he can buy meth sees a man walking down a dark alley, and he's supposed to be worrying about a 1% chance?

    I don't think we're talking about rational actors here. We're talking about muggers.

  • Neu Mejican||

    The reason the CCW laws have no deterrent effect is that the crime rate is an aggregate of millions of interactions, each embedded in a context that determines the logic of that interaction.

    Think of it as the invisible hand working a second job to save up for that boat.

  • Scooby||

    We're not innundated with stories about widespread crime in states with strict gun laws, either.

    I guess those stories of crime in DC, NYC, etc. are just collective hallucinations.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Scooby,

    You mean NYC, the safest large city in America?

  • ||

    Abdul wrote: "But am I the only person here who finds people who insist upon open-carry when there's no self-evident reason for it just a little bit weird?"

    Well, Abdul, if you will tell me where I'm going to need my pistol ahead of time, I'll only wear it when I go there. Maybe I WON'T go there in the first place. If you can't tell me that, then what I think is a "little bit weird" is people criticizing my choice to be ready to defend myself.

    Neu Mejican wrote: "does Warren have a right to KNOW whether or not I have a gun when I am on his property?"

    OF COURSE. It is HIS property, and he has the right to decide who can and can't go there. He has decided that people carrying concealed can't go there. While I can hope that he will seek professional treatment for his hoplophobia, he is perfectly within his rights to be hoplophobic.

    joe wrote: "Heart attacks are several hundred times more common than violent crime."

    WHERE? I'll move there! According to the FBI, you are more likely to be victim of a violent crime than be hospitalized for any non-crime-related reason.

    TrickyVic wrote: "If the cop is a better shot than your neighbor is a coin toss."

    Nope. NYPD brags that, in street shootings, their cops hit the target 16% of the time. Non-police civilians have a hit rate of 52%. That's because people who pay to have a gun tend to practice with it, while cops only have to shoot well enough to qualify periodically at the range.

  • ||

    In a vain effort to get in the last post: remember, the concealed/open carry pistol is only their to get you to your car where you will have a belt-fed weapon FTW!
    NEPUTs beware!

  • Neu Mejican||

    joe,

    he's supposed to be worrying about a 1% chance?

    I don't think we're talking about rational actors here. We're talking about muggers.


    Actually, a rational mugger would consider that 1% chance rationally and conclude that he has a 99% chance of picking a victim without a gun if he can't see the gun.

    If he can see your gun he has a 0% chance.

  • Neu Mejican||

    J Golden Rockwell,

    So if Warren has right to know that I a gun to help him exercise his property rights, does he have a right to know that I have a gun so that he can exercise his association rights?

  • ||

    I guess those stories of crime in DC, NYC, etc. are just collective hallucinations.

    Yes, Scooby, just like the stories about crime in St. Louis, New Orleans, and Houston. NEXT!

    According to the FBI, you are more likely to be victim of a violent crime than be hospitalized for any non-crime-related reason.

    Link, please? Last year, there were over 300,000 deaths attributed just to smoking-related illnesses, and approximately 30,000 homicides with guns.

  • Neu Mejican||

    As for the cause of injury/hospitalization being primarily crime...that's just crazy talk.

    Here is an older survey.
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5307a1.htm

    The distributions of mechanisms for unintentional and violence-related injuries varied substantially by age group. For unintentional injury deaths, mechanisms with the highest rates were the MV-traffic occupant (26%), drowning (fatal and nonfatal) (17%), suffocation/inhalation (14%), and pedestrian (12%) categories for persons aged 65 years (Figure 16) (Tables 8 and 9). For nonfatal unintentional injury, mechanisms with the highest rates were the fall (36%) and struck by/against (22%) categories for persons aged 65 years (Figure 16) (Table 8 and 9).

    For fatal assault-related injuries, the leading mechanisms of injury for all age groups were the firearm gunshot (11,671), terrorism (2,922), cut/pierce (1,971), suffocation/inhalation (690), and struck by/against (341) categories (Tables 6 and 7). Firearm gunshot injuries accounted for 80% of homicides among persons aged 15--24 years (Figure 17) (Tables 10 and 11). The leading mechanisms of nonfatal assault-related injury across all age groups were the struck by/against (1,476,961) and cut/pierce (138,839) categories (Tables 6 and 7). For suicide, the leading mechanism of injury for all age groups was the firearm gunshot (16,869) category, followed by the suffocation/inhalation (6,198) and poisoning (5,191) categories (Tables 6 and 7); however, suffocation/inhalation suicides (169) superseded firearm suicides (90) for those persons aged 45 years (Figure 18) (Tables 10 and 11). Poisoning (215,814) and cutting/piercing (62,817) were the leading mechanisms of injury for nonfatal self-harm--related injuries (Tables 6 and 7).

  • Neu Mejican||

    From the same link:
    Unintentional injury accounted for a majority of fatal (64.6% overall) and nonfatal (92.7% overall) injuries across all age groups; however, the percentage of violence-related fatal and nonfatal injuries varied by age.

    Notice that this was from 2004 looking at 2001 figures, which include 9/11.

  • ||

    Have we (as a nation) lost the real reason for the right and "privilege" to openly carry a weapon? I understand that reason for the 2nd Amendment was because royalty and those in their employ were the only persons allowed to be armed. People should be encouraged to openly carry a weapon as a symbol of freedom.

    /Han Solo & Malcom 'Mal' Reynolds agrees.

  • ||

    Neu Mejican wrote: "So if Warren has right to know that I a gun to help him exercise his property rights, does he have a right to know that I have a gun so that he can exercise his association rights?"

    Warren has the right to do a body-cavity search of anyone coming onto his property, if he so chooses (and in fact, there are places such as jewelry clearinghouses where anyone leaving might be given such a search or even X-rayed). By the same token, you can choose not to go there (which is the choice that I would probably make).

  • Neu Mejican||

    J Golden Rockwell,

    That was a dodge.
    I was asking about association rights.

  • Neu Mejican||

    J Golden,

    A dodge, because the question was premised on the fact that Warren has the right to know if I have a gun to exercise his property rights.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Laws against concealed carry are about convenience for law enforcement and those wanting to enforce their property rights.

    No?

  • buddyw||

    I don't understand all of the gun haters. I carry a gun on occasion, and I don't go around in constant fear of being assaulted.

    Are you in constant fear of having a wreck when you put on your seatbelt? No. They are both safety features that we hope we never have to use.

    Just relax, these good samaritans are doing us a favor. I wish one had been there at Virgina Tech.

    Remember, when seconds count, police are only minuets away.

  • Jurjen S.||

    Quoth joe: "Link, please? Last year, there were over 300,000 deaths attributed just to smoking-related illnesses, and approximately 30,000 homicides with guns."

    Actually, that's ~30,000 gun deaths; homicide, suicide, and accidental, with suicide making up ~16,000 (over half). It is also rather disingenuous of you to pretend that violent crime is rare by poiting only to homicides.

    According to the BJS, in 2005, there were "5.2 million violent crimes (rapes or sexual assaults, robberies, aggravated assaults and simple assaults)." Note that homicide isn't included in that, though with 16,692 recorded homicides in 2005, it doesn't greatly affect the total number of violent crimes.

    By comparison, "in the United States, approximately 1.5 million myocardial infarctions occur annually."

    So that's 5.2 million violent crimes to 1.5 million heart attacks.

  • T||

    Do you walk around with a heart defibrillator? Heart attacks are several hundred times more common than violent crime.

    Nope. They're still a little too pricey, plus being useless for anything but treating heart attacks. Instead, I learned CPR.

    Bandages? Splints? Anti-septics? No?

    Walk around with? No. Carry in both cars? Yes. Is that close enough for you, or am I supposed to take a trauma bag with me wherever I go?

    No. You sit around and wait for the minions of the state in those threats to personal safety.

    It's only the very rare threat posed by violent crime that motivates your wonderful, self-reliant, individualist altruism.


    I also don't pay for a wrecker to follow me around just in case I have a car accident, which is statistically more likely than either a violent crime or a heart attack. I'm not entirely sure what your point is, other than that you have a different risk assessment and how to respond to it than some of us here.

  • ||

    NM, you are giving stats on injuries, not crime or hospitalization.

    FBI UCR: You have a 1.94% chance of having been victim of a reported violent crime in 2005. Many violent crimes go unreported for various reasons, but these can't be estimated so aren't counted.

    HHS ROH: You have a 1.91 chance of having been hospitalized in 2005 for treatment not related to crime. This figure is corrected for the number of patients who are hospitalized more than one time, transferred between facilities, or whose status is changed (each an event resulting in a statistical "discharge"). Adding those people back in gives you a 13% chance of hospitalization.

  • ||

    Do you walk around with a heart defibrillator? Heart attacks are several hundred times more common than violent crime.

    Bandages? Splints? Anti-septics? No?

    No. You sit around and wait for the minions of the state in those threats to personal safety.


    joe, where I live there are no state-owned hospitals or ambulances or state-employed physicians.

    I have a cabinet full of first aid supplies, and a fairly serious first aid kit in my vehicle. My (private) employer has defibrillators scattered around (not to mention a full-blown ER, several surgery suites, and a building full of doctors).

    I provide for my own emergency medical care as best I can, and am reliant on the private sector for the rest.

    So I really don't see your point.

    In concealed carry states, use extreme force to incapacitate your victim in case they have a hidden gun.

    Given the prevalence of CCW statutes these days, you'd think there would be some data for this theory.

  • ||

    The bottom line is that I can think that I might need my pistol today, and be wrong every day for the next 40 years.

    Someone who thinks that he or she WON'T need a pistol today can only be wrong ONCE.

  • Jurjen S.||

    Oops, correction to the aforegoing:

  • Jurjen S.||

    Oops, correction to my earlier post: in 2005, there were 11,346 homicides committed with firearms.

  • Steve Verdon||

    So, someone who sticks guns in people's faces and takes their wallets so he can buy meth sees a man walking down a dark alley, and he's supposed to be worrying about a 1% chance?

    I don't think we're talking about rational actors here. We're talking about muggers.



    So they aren't rational becaue you think they aren't joe?

    They may not have the same frame of reference when determining a course of action that doesn't make them irrational or non-rational. After all, they are doing something rational for getting the money necessary for their drug habit quickly (mugging others).

    And it isn't the simple probability that is the question but the expected loss that is important. If the loss is very high, and the probability small a person might still decide not to engage in non-risky behavior.

  • Neu Mejican||

    J Golden,

    NM, you are giving stats on injuries, not crime or hospitalization.

    Yes I was giving stats on injuries.

    That seems to me like the more important metric.

    Those guns are supposed to be protecting you from something.

  • Neu Mejican||

    RC Dean,

    Given the prevalence of CCW statutes these days, you'd think there would be some data for this theory.

    It is a deliberately ridiculous theory that is exactly parallel to yours regarding CCW's positive effect on crime.

    There is data on that...results-no significant impact.

  • Neu Mejican||

    An interesting essay on the topic.

    http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=john_donohue

  • Geotpf||

    I don't see why there should be a legal distinction between concealed and open carry. Both should be legal (although it should also be legal for property owners to ban people with guns from their businesses).

  • ||

    Jurjen S.

    The word "homicide" is inclusive of murder, suicide, and unintentional homicide (eg, some accidents).

    So that's 5.2 million violent crimes to 1.5 million heart attacks. That's nice, but the issue on the table is "guns violence," not "violent crimes."

    Also, see the figures provided by Neu Mejican.

  • ||

    T,

    I'm not entirely sure what your point is, other than that you have a different risk assessment and how to respond to it than some of us here. Actually, that's exactly my point. Contrary to the manly-man chest-beating of some, the choice to carry a gun is far more a consequence of a warped risk assessment and an affection for guns.

  • ||

    RC,

    joe, where I live there are no state-owned hospitals or ambulances or state-employed physicians. The gun-toting equivalent would be those who live in extremely remote areas where the police are not able to respond. I agree, such circumstances change the equation considerably.

  • Neu Mejican||

    And just because we are playing with the statistics on this...

    1.94% chance of having been victim of a reported violent crime in 2005.

    Why are we looking at an annual rate rather than a lifetime rate?

    What are the chances that you will be hospitalized in your lifetime for a non-crime related reason compared to the chances you will be the victim of a violent crime?

    I would think that to count as a victim of a violent crime, violence would have to occur...otherwise you were the victim of a potentially violent crime.

  • ||

    "Contrary to the manly-man chest-beating of some, the choice to carry a gun is far more a consequence of a warped risk assessment and an affection for guns."

    I don't know about chest beating, sounds masochistic and I'm not into that, but guns are just another tool. I don't think anyone who has done a significant amount of carry has affection for it. That hard chunk of steel do chafe a bit.

    Warped risk assessment? Sounds like a value judgment to me. House fires are damn rare, but I bet you have fire insurance. Is your life worth as much as your house?

    That being said, I only carry when I'm going to be far from the "minions of state". I do weigh the risk of scaring someone with an inadvertent reveal (low), vs. the risk of trouble (really low, considering where I live).

    One down side of spending the effort to get licensed and proficient is knowing how pissed you'll be if you one day needed to have gun in hand, and the only reason you didn't was apathy.

  • ||

    "You have a 1.94% chance of having been victim of a reported violent crime in 2005."

    Is that number also corrected for people who are victims of multiple crimes and other possible repeated counts of single incidents (for whatever reason), similar to the HHS correction? I imagine there's a pretty long tail on that distribution. If it's not, it seems like 1.94% vs. 13% is the more relevant comparison.

  • ||


    I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Or does that only apply to those of us not in law enforcement (pun intended)?


    Of course it only applies to them. This protects them from being knowledgeable of the very obvious fact that civilians actually have rights.

  • ||

    Contrary to the manly-man chest-beating of some, the choice to carry a gun is far more a consequence of a warped risk assessment and an affection for guns.


    Irrelevant. The choice of carrying a gun is your business if you want to carry one, and my business ALONE if I want to carry one. The important issue is to avoid trampling over other people's rights.


    Please, do not invoke the woefully UNprincipled "precautionary principle", which is a logical fallacy in itself.

  • ||

    That cuts both ways. We're not inundated with stories about widespread crime in states with strict gun laws, either.

    Right.... D.C. being whisked out of existence by an unnatural force....

  • SIV||

    There were a lot of comments splitting hairs on the anti-gun side but (unless I missed something) no one refutes that carrying a firearm deters crime.

    Whether CC laws quantifiably reduce reported crime rates is meaningless and irrelevant.

  • ||

    kinnath - I live in AZ, and when I was up in Phoenix I personally knew a store owner who avoided being robbed by a man with a gun by brandishing his own sidearm that he carried with him, so just because you can only remember the one story you read about private citizens defending themselves with a firearm is completely worthless. I believe it is documented that "the media" under-reports a lot of instances of self-defence with a firearm.

  • ||

    ...the choice to carry a gun is far more a consequence of a warped risk assessment and an affection for guns./

    Your viewpoint, joe, which I think is wrong. And I do not, at this time, even own a gun, although I have in the past and have open-carried in the past, quite frequently. FWIW, I was usually in a fairly rural area, if not downright wilderness.

    That being said, I do plan to get my CCW and a new sidearm as soon as reasonably possible.

    Anyway, my only point is that I think you are "projecting" some assumptions onto people which I do not think are fair or accurate.

  • ||

    Wow, sorry for the grammer fuck-up and the multiple posts!

  • Stupidest comment ever made by||

    But your property rights do not supersede the rights of an individual coming onto your property.

  • Neu Mejican, the smart poster||

    Just putting out ideas for discussion.

    Could you elaborate on why you think it is stupid.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Silly scenario about how basic rights are not superseded by property rights.

    I have a right to life.
    This requires food.
    I have food, an apple, but accidentally drop it.
    It rolls onto Warren's property, past a sign that says "NO TRESPASSING."

    Do I have a right to go onto his property to retrieve my apple, even if he says no?

    Does my basic right to food (or my property, for that matter) balance Warren's right to condition permission to go onto his property "however he darn well pleases?"

    Or is it that "an individual has no right to come onto Warren's property without Warren's permission. He may condition that permission however he darn well pleases" meaning that this right supersedes my right to retrieve my property (an apple)?

  • ||

    Neu Mejican wrote:"Yes I was giving stats on injuries.

    "That seems to me like the more important metric."

    The problem is that those stats aren't a COMPLETE metric. You don't have enough pieces to put the puzzle together.

    "Why are we looking at an annual rate rather than a lifetime rate?"

    Because nobody has published a lifetime rate for victims of violent crime. The best we can do is year to year, if we're going to use real statistics.

    Regarding you dropping your apple, no, your right to eat the apple does not supersede his right to keep you off of his property. If you throw your apple through the open window of his bedroom, that doesn't give you the right to enter his house to get it.

  • Non Silly Scenarios||

    Personal right: Abstaining from or Partaking in inhalation of Tobacco smoke

    Property right: Allowing or Prohibiting Smoking in My Establishment.

    If in conflict Property overrides Personal.


    Personal Right: To Parley, to Create Numerous Copies of a Written Word, to Gather with Friends for Dissemination of Ideas.

    Property Right: Shut Up and Get Off My Lawn.


    If in conflict, Property overrides personal


    And per the context of the original comment:


    Personal right: Possessing or Declining to Possess a Firearm.

    Property right: Allowing, Prohibiting, or Requiring Possession of a Firearm in my Home or Place of Business

    If in conflict, Property overrides Personal

  • ||

    Sparky wrote:
    "Is that number also corrected for people who are victims of multiple crimes and other possible repeated counts of single incidents (for whatever reason), similar to the HHS correction?"

    Yes. The FBI UCR stats count individuals whose names were on police reports. Thus, one name might be on several reports, but only counted as one victim.

  • One more||

    Not moral, not something I agree with, and not something I would do myself if in a position to decide such things, but is currently illegal and shouldn't be

    Personal right: Having Breakfast at Denny's

    Property right: Not if your Black.

  • Kevin Carson||

    Has an internal investigation EVER found that a fucking cop did anything wrong?

  • ||

    One more wrote: "Personal right: Having Breakfast at Denny's

    "Property right: Not if your Black."

    Actually, it's not a personal right, either. Whatever your color, you are only able to have breakfast at Denny's if you have enough money to pay for what you want to eat.

    Private property rights override personal rights because one of the property rights is Exclusion -- you may close off your land to anyone you don't want there. This keeps people from wandering into your bedroom while you're having sex.

  • Chromepulse||

    If it's not to late to jump in on this thread, I would like to point out that many of the open carry laws are on the books to help protect CHL holder in the case that their carry gun were to "print" through clothing or inadvertantly be shown. There are states that would prosecute a CHL holder were they to, say, reach for something on a shelf in a grocery store and raise their jacket over their handgun, frightening the local soccer mom.

  • T||

    This keeps people from wandering into your bedroom while you're having sex.

    Unless you're into that.

  • ||

    Joe, if there is nothing to fear then why do politicians have so many ARMED GUARDS? Not just a pistol mind you but FULL AUTO guns?

    You can not say where and when you might need to defend yourself but it is safe to say the cops will not be there at that moment.

    If you don't care to defend yourself thats fine be a lemming. I for one rather have at least a chance of coming out alive and not another statistic.

    As for letting cops shoot only, I can tell you know nothing of guns and just because your a cop doesn't mean you can shoot worth a damn. Many cops refuse to even practice believe it or not. I once watched a SWAT officer get outshot by a Kindergarden School Administrator. Now if you had to pick real quick who would take the shot to save your pathetic ass you would assume SWAT over the Kindergarden Cop right.

    The only thing for sure is that if the event rises and you are defenseless your fucked. But should you make it your resposibility to ensure your own safety at all time you might just survive.

    Personally people with your outlook on my safety aren't worth using a bullet to save to begin with since according to you the cops will be here any second, let them save you!

  • Neu Mejican||

    Quick responses to silly scenarios:

    Property right: Allowing, Prohibiting, or Requiring Possession of a Firearm in my Home or Place of Business

    If in conflict, Property overrides Personal


    Requiring Possession- Naw.
    You can exclude certain behaviors, but requiring them is more problematic.

    Property Right: Shut Up and Get Off My Lawn.


    You can demand I get off your lawn.
    I don't have to shut up.

    your right to eat the apple does not supersede his right to keep you off of his property. If you throw your apple through the open window of his bedroom, that doesn't give you the right to enter his house to get it.

    Not equivalent to the scenario I described.

    If I retrieve my apple against Warren's wishes, he can sue me for infringement of his rights. You think he'll win? Nope. He won't even get it heard. A right that is not recognized by others and that is not enforceable is not a right.

    [steps out of range of the ensuing outrage at that last sentence]

  • Neu Mejican||

    To elaborate on the enforceable rights concept.

    "Shut up and get off my lawn."

    You can call the cops.
    They can use force to get me off your lawn.
    They can't make me shut up.

    Personal rights superseding property rights.

    You can exclude me from your property.
    You can't use force to get me off your property if I am not endangering you.
    My right to be secure in my person supersedes your right to be secure in your property.

    Of course, you can call the cops.
    They can use force to remove me and enforce your right to exclude people from your property.

    [this is still, btw, posted in the spirit of discussing the implications of peoples assertions that property rights are absolute or nearly so.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I am walking down the street.

    I stop to tie my shoes.

    I sit on your lawn.

    You yell.

    Hey you, get the hell off my lawn.

    I say...okay.

    I continue to tie my shoes.

    You yell again.

    I say "fuck off- I'll be done in a second."

    Do I have the right to my behavior?

    Rights means "just or legal claim."

    Am I justified in my decision to leave your property after completing my act?

    Are you justified in your decision to yell at me?

    Would you be justified in calling the cops?

    Would a cop be justified in arresting me if s/he saw the exchange?

  • T||

    NM,

    I dunno about the laws in your jurisdiction. I can only speak to the laws in mine. If you are on my property after being told to leave, I am justified in using force to make you move. In other words, if you don't get off my lawn, I can drag/kick your ass off it. Likewise, I can call the cops and have you dragged off it, and charged with criminal trespass. Under the laws of the state of Texas, these are all just and legal claims. You could try to fight them, but you'd lose.

  • Neu Mejican||

    T,

    I am justified in using force to make you move. In other words, if you don't get off my lawn, I can drag/kick your ass off it. Likewise, I can call the cops and have you dragged off it, and charged with criminal trespass.

    You sure about that?

    This was the closest summary I could find:

    When is a landowner allowed to shoot at a trespasser? According to Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code, a landowner can shoot at or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the landowner reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or that the landowner himself would be exposed to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury if the landowner does not use deadly force. A landowner can also shoot at or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the force is immediately necessary to prevent the trespasser's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the trespasser who is fleeing immediately after committing one of those acts from escaping with the property. "Criminal mischief" includes "knowingly or intentionally damaging or destroying, tampering with or marking, inscribing slogans, drawing or painting on tangible property " of the property owner.

    Using potentially dangerous measures to protect your property is not recommended in all cases, as it can expose a property owner to possible physical harm and also criminal prosecution if too much force is used. However, property owners should be aware of, and exercise, their right to protect their property under the proper circumstances.

  • Neu Mejican||

    T:

    More complete
    SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

    §9.41. Protection of one's own property.

    (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

    (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

    (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

    (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.



    I read that as saying you're wrong.

    You will, perhaps, disagree.

  • Neu Mejican||

    For what it is worth, it supports my contention that I can go onto Warren's land to retrieve my property whether or not he wants me there.

  • T||

    Okay, you found the penal code. Good on ya.

    So in your example, once you tell me to "fuck off" and refuse to leave my yard, I would reasonably believe force was immediately necessary to terminate your trespass, since lesser methods (verbal persuasion) have failed. Additionally, you also became guilty of criminal trespass.

    We obviously differ on the interpretation of the statute. My gut feel on Texas law is that once I tell you to leave and you don't, no jury in the state will convict me of assault for trying to get you to leave. This is the same state where you can shoot teenagers in the back for trying to vandalize your car and not get prosecuted. Texas is pretty generous with the defense of self and property exceptions on a practical level.

  • T||

    For what it is worth, it supports my contention that I can go onto Warren's land to retrieve my property whether or not he wants me there.

    Urr. I'm not so sure. There's a conflict here with respect to your rights in your tangible property and Warren's real property rights. I will have to consult with in-house counsel (aka the wife) and see what she thinks. I don't see a statutory exception to trespass for retrieving other tangible property, but that doesn't mean there isn't relevant case law.

  • Neu Mejican||

    T: It is important to read the whole statement.

    "fuck off- I'll be done in a second."

    The "I'll be done in a second" clause would make your perception that immediate force is needed seem pretty unreasonable to me. Even in Texas I would be surprised in a ruling that said it was reasonable to assume force was needed.

    And that "even in Texas" is coming from a New Mexican. We've not thought ya'll have a good grasp on property rights since the whole invasion thing (both times, 1841 & 1861).

    ;^)

  • Neu Mejican||

    T:

    I don't see a statutory exception to trespass for retrieving other tangible property,

    It is right there in the statue I cited.

    the force is immediately necessary to ... recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately

    Trespassing is a very low level of force, it seems to me. Recovery of my property can include more extreme levels of force, so certainly trespassing is not prohibited here.

    Any attempt by you to stop me from recovering my property would be, in effect, a dispossession of my property. I could not only go onto your land...I could kick your ass if you used force to try and keep me from my property.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Your personal right to be secure in your person, however, would protect you from any force by me as long as you did not use force against my person.

    Your property, however, is not so strongly protected, in this particular case.

  • T||

    But I don't want you off in a second, I want you gone NOW. It's not what you believe, it's what I (the actor) reasonably believe. If you won't leave right goddamned now, I'll by god make you.

    I do see your point in that by refusing you access to recover your accidentally dropped property, I am unlawfully dispossessing you of the property as long as you are solely trespassing to the minimum extent required to recover.

    And that "even in Texas" is coming from a New Mexican. We've not thought ya'll have a good grasp on property rights since the whole invasion thing (both times, 1841 & 1861).

    What? Texans aren't universally loved by all? I'm shocked! Our justifications may be shaky, but we've got the whole force thing down, dammit. ;)

    I'm not a native, so I find the place delightfully absurd sometimes. Sometimes frightfully, as well...

  • Neu Mejican||

    But I don't want you off in a second, I want you gone NOW. It's not what you believe, it's what I (the actor) reasonably believe. If you won't leave right goddamned now, I'll by god make you.

    The reasonableness of your feeling is what matters. And you, the individual who will have to justify (claim a right) is not the arbiter of that reasonableness.

    If you have a right to ask me to leave.
    I have a right to ask me to leave, I have a right to be given just time to comply.

    Immediate is not reasonable, and you don't have a right to demand it.

    Like I said.
    Just claim...not just a claim, a justifiable claim.

  • Neu Mejican||

    ooops that is

    I have a right to ask me to leave, I have a right to be given some time to comply.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Let me clarify...that was hopelessly muddled.

    It doesn't matter whether you, the property owner, think it is reasonable. It doesn't matter if I, the trespasser thinks it is reasonable. When it comes down to deciding who was right (who has the right, as it were) it is the arbiter's opinion that matters. This would mean a judge or a jury of our peers. I don't think the "immediately" claim would hold up for the scenario given. Even in Texas.

  • T||

    I don't think the "immediately" claim would hold up for the scenario given. Even in Texas.

    After consulting with counsel, who no longer practices so take it with a grain of salt, you're partially correct. You have to be given time to comply. However, you have to begin complying immediately. I have no obligation to care that your shoe is untied. Once I tell you to get off the property, your next action should be moving towards the property line. Anything other than that can be considered a refusal to cease trespass. How it goes in court would probably depend on the amount of force used.

    I suppose I could find out by experiment. I have a constant supply of teenagers that don't belong to me coming around the house these days. Lemme wait until one pisses me off and then I'll try it and get back to you. ;)

  • Neu Mejican||

    T:

    Well, I believe that someone arguing the property owner's case would argue what your counsel says.

    How it goes in court would probably depend on the amount of force used.

    I would say it is unlikely you could justify any force greater than yelling a second time, maybe louder and with more explicatives.

    Physically aggression ain't justified. Even in Texas.

    ;)

    Nice talking with ya.

  • ||

    When I worked in S. Africa in the early 1980s (apartheid was still in force) it was illegal for citizens to carry openly, but carrying concealed was perfectly legal. Why should the "bad guys" be able to know you're armed? IMHO "the right to buy weapons is the right to be free."

    C.F. "The Weapon Shops of Isher"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher

    Just remember, "An unarmed man is a subject."
    http://www.google.com/search?q=%22An+unarmed+man+is+a+subject.%22

  • ||

    The funny thing is, this newspaper once ignored stories just like this and argued that since open carry was legal, there was no need to pass a concealed carry law in Ohio.

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5572

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement