Second Amendment

Plaintiff in D.C. Gun Carry Victory Speaks, Defends Public Carry as a Matter of Personal, and Public, Safety

|

Tom Palmer (who works for the libertarian institutions the Atlas Network and the Cato Institute and has been a movement intellectual and activist since the 1970s) over the weekend, to his great surprise, won his long-simmering case challenging D.C.'s ban on carrying legally registered weapons in public. The case had been languishing in U.S. District Court in D.C. for mysterious reasons for five years and a Saturday decision release is unusual.

The core of the decision in Palmer v. D.C., which relies quite a bit on a case from the 9th Circuit in California, Peruta v. San Diego, which I blogged about in March.

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

Palmer was an original plaintiff in the Heller case that established the Second Amendment as securing an individual right for self-defense as well. Palmer has a harrowing story of being menaced by a gang of thugs in his youth in which he learned the very practical self-defense value of being able to have a weapon in public, not just in the home. Although this story is compelling to many who might wonder why someone wants to have a gun outside the home, Palmer says, having been menaced in public should not settle the question of someone's right to carry a weapon for self-defense. It's about the right, not just about his personal experience.

Palmer knows for a fact that the right to carry has the promise of making his life safer, though he acknowledged that "undoubtedly some people will believe that [the decision will make the people of D.C. less safe]. But plenty of people who have been victims of violent crime will be relieved to know they can defend themselves. People who are knowledgeable about firearms and who don't live in fantasy worlds will understand that having legal firearms owners around you makes you safer. The criminals are currently carrying concealed weapons—this shocks and surprises many people! But that's the fact." 

Palmer says now whatever way D.C. tries to manage or regulate the right to carry short of the total ban that's now off the table will be "a political decision as a matter of law." He doesn't see a core constitutional rights issue involved in open v. concealed carry. In fact, Palmer thinks that gun carry activists who "walk into Wal Mart with firearms displayed in ready-to-use mode are a disgrace. It's all about look at me, look at me." That sort of activism, Palmer says, "has not advanced the agenda of law abiding people exercising their rights" to self-defense outside the home.

Palmer gives all credit to his lawyer Alan Gura, and that if the city decides to try to appeal the decision they are prepared to go as far as necessary. "We will not give up."

The decision in Palmer takes full bans on public carry off the table for D.C., but the issue of the extent to which the right can be regulated and curtailed—specifically whether localities can insist that a local official must decide whether you really need one—ought to be taken up by the Supreme Court soon, though they have so far been reluctant to do so. See my April feature discussing the New Jersey Drake v. Jerejian case that the Court declined this year, challenging the state's restrictive carry licensing regime.

Alan Gura, the lawyer who won this Palmer case and both major Supreme Court cases that established the individual right in the Second Amendment (Heller) and then extended it to states and localities (McDonald), summed up the case's importance on his blog:

In 2012, I won Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), which struck down Illinois' total ban on the carrying of defensive handguns outside the home. With this decision in Palmer, the nation's last explicit ban of the right to bear arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn't going to fly. 

Gura also this morning posted on his website a link to the city's response memo, approved by police chief Cathy Lanier, in which police are advised they cans still stop people and ask them about guns on their person. If they find the citizen has a gun and they are a D.C. resident and it isn't registered, they can still be collared. If they are a non-D.C. resident from an area where you don't need a license or permit to carry they are free to go—unless they are a felon or otherwise legally barred from possessing handguns.

Meredith Bragg blogged the breaking news over the weekend. I wrote the history of the Heller case, Gun Control on Trial, in which lawyer Gura and plaintiff Palmer were stars.

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.

112 responses to “Plaintiff in D.C. Gun Carry Victory Speaks, Defends Public Carry as a Matter of Personal, and Public, Safety

  1. I wonder what Adam Kokesh thinks lol

    1. I thought he was dead or in jail after going on a shotgun-fueled mushroom rampage. Or was it a mushroom-fueled shotgun rampage? Regardless, bitch set him up.

      1. I guess I was referring to his jail time from open-carrying a shotgun into DC on video. What’s all this about shrooms?

        1. It must really suck to have a felony conviction on your record (and thus never be allowed to possess firearms legally) because of violation of a statute that’s been held to be unconstitutional.

    2. Kokesh faces a maximum of 15 years in prison when he is sentenced on Sept. 5, 2014.

      Whoah, and this is just for the shrooms. This guy got fucked. The raid on his house was most certainly political retribution.

      1. The trick is, when you’re going out.in public to protest or advocate an unpopular position, you ought to make sure you’re squeaky clean otherwise. Because even if you’re within your rights on Topic A, you need to be looking out for being attacked on Topic B.

        1. +1 Rosa Parks

        2. Yep. Al Capone got thrown in Alcatraz simply for not paying his taxes, not for all the other nasty shit he did. till the day he died, he probably had now idea how he got outflanked like that.

  2. D C police chief wants everybody to know D C is DIFFERENT. Sure, civilians out in Hicklandia can carry guns without bringing civilization to an abrupt and bloody end, but SEAT OF GUVMINTZ!

  3. Palmer gives all credit to his lawyer Alan Gura, and that if the city decides to try to appeal the decision they are prepared to go as far as necessary.

    Would any attorney turn down the opportunity to argue in front of the Supreme Court?

    1. Yes. There are plenty of lawyers who know they’d only embarass themselves if they tried to argue anything in open court, let alone before the Supremes.

  4. n fact, Palmer thinks that gun carry activists who “walk into Wal Mart with firearms displayed in ready-to-use mode are a disgrace. It’s all about look at me, look at me.” That sort of activism, Palmer says, “has not advanced the agenda of law abiding people exercising their rights” to self-defense outside the home.

    I’m getting hungry for some deep dish with natural sausage…

    1. I think it’s exactly the right thing to do — exercising your rights simply because they are your rights is nothing to be ashamed of, and it certainly isn’t a disgrace. I’m not sure where that nugget of horseshit sprung from.

      1. It’s disgraceful because it hurts the overall gun rights case. Being an asshole in public generally doesn’t help you win arguments, and the other people who have a stake in the argument being won end up being hurt.

        I understand that it is legal in many cases, but all the extreme open carriers are doing is to increase the likelihood of it being made.illegal and/or be banned on various private properties.

        I have friends who open carry, but they aren’t dicks about it. It makes a big difference.

        1. It might have more to do with people being pussies and perceiving “extreme” carriers as threats/assholes than the carriers themselves. I’m not sure how having a metal tube flung over your shoulder makes you an asshole.

        2. How does simply having a weapon equal “being an asshole in public”? You only define it that way because you choose to define it that way.

          1. It doesn’t, and that’s not what I meant, and you know it.

            1. I am not the only one who read you that way, so try clarifying what you actually meant.

              1. Palmer thinks that gun carry activists who “walk into Wal Mart with firearms displayed in ready-to-use mode are a disgrace. It’s all about look at me, look at me.”

                Try this as an antecedent to the “It’s” at the beginning of my 1:26 post.

                1. Who on god’s green earth is walking into a Wal*Mart with a weapon drawn? Are you talking about open carry or something else? Be specific.

                  1. I have been present at an open carry dinner where three of the eight or so drew their weapons, cleared them at the table, and began to pass them around and compare them. That was an astounding lack of judgment on their part and I politely told my friend who was with them not to invite me to another one.

                    1. If they cleared them safely, why’s that an astounding lack of judgment? No offense, but unless I’m missing something, you’ve not got a whole lot of faith in your fellow man.

                    2. How do you hand a gun, cleared or not, across a restaurant table and observe Cooper’s rule #2?

                    3. I’m a fan of overzealous gun safety, but I also have faith in my own un-retardedness. If I know I just removed every round from a given gun, I also know pointing it at someone’s face isn’t dangerous.

                    4. How do you hand a gun, cleared or not, across a restaurant table and observe Cooper’s rule #2?

                      What? Because the weapon is pointed at the table? That is a very persnickety objection.

                    5. Well, generally, people’s legs are located below the table.

                    6. I am still wondering what any of this has to do with people walking in Wal*Marts with guns drawn…which never ever happened and you know it.

                    7. So “ready-to-use condition” equals guns drawn to you? I think of it.in terms of people carrying a rifle at low ready, which is how I read the.original comment, and which is a specific concern people have brought.up here before. Unless you’re in a “situation,” that rifle, if any should be slung with the safety on, not held in two hands like it’s about to be fired.

                    8. Because apparently I am not being very clear, when you said “It’s a disgrace…”, what were you referring to? Because people doing that at an open-carry dinner is a far, far different animal from the original comment you glommed onto.

                  2. I saw a guy once walk in carrying his rifle in one hand by the handle on top. That’s about it. Nobody gave a shit, and it was pretty busy, too.

          2. Exactly.

            When these same fuckbrats who label carriers as assholes and threats for simply possessing an inanimate object get equally indignant and terrified at the sight of a car — a hurtling metal slab of potential death — I might consider this argument. Until then, it’s bullshit, plain and simple.

          3. The assholishness comes from the type of weapon. Rifles are outside toys. It’s like bringing your skis inside the lodge. It’s a faux pas.

            These guys clearly give the impression that they are simply rubbing the opposition’s nose in it. While their motives may be well intended (to get pussies used to seeing guns), it probably hurts the cause more than it helps it.

            1. In absolutely practical terms, that could be true, and probably is in many places.

              I know folks who just fling over their guns after range time, say, and go about their daily chores. And I can personally vouch for the fact that they’re not doing it to show off or be “assholes” about it.

            2. My problem is that you’re defining it as giving that impression…because that’s what you want it to be?

              1. Because that’s what the gun grabbers have and will continue to define it as.

                Don’t give them ammunition (no pun intended) is what I think db and FdA are saying.

                1. That’s exactly it. Believe me, I’d love to live.in a world where.I could carry my M16 PDW slung over my shoulder and not rate a second glance. I just think confrontational open carry at this stage of the debate is counterproductive to achieving that end.

                  1. you can live in that world, but you’re choosing to be an obstacle to it rather than an enabler of it.

                    1. I see the extreme in your face open carriers as enabler of those who would use fear to push laws against carry.of any kind. The.legal situation in the U.S. is still precarious enough that sever limitations could be enacted and it could be decades before the cases made their.way through the.courts. And even then, under Heller, it’s likely courts could legitimize severe restrictions that didn’t rise to the.level of a complete ban.

                    2. So why didn’t you just say that? If you and Palmer think that open-carriers are causing a problem, then just state that plainly. I don’t need a bunch of dancing about how it’s just those *annoying* *in your face* open-carrier types. Reminds of people who bitched about gays “flaunting” it. Really, what it is is that these displays bother you, even if it was Gramma Moses and her .22LR

                  2. I just think confrontational open carry at this stage of the debate is counterproductive to achieving that end.

                    Just a nitpick, db, but the only reason we’ve gotten to “this point in the debate” is because we’ve given too much consideration to the pants-shitting grabbers and their feelings IRT open carry.

                    1. How in the.world the NFA ever passed constitutional muster in the 1930s is beyond me. That started a terrible trend.

              2. What’s really giving me a chuckle here is usually I am the one being told he’s an asshole for claiming that others aren’t pure enough.in their anti gun control stance. Usually I’m the.one getting a huffy about the NRA being a bunch.of pussies for not fighting to repeal the NFA, or pushing to repeal laws against carrying in bars or churches.

                1. That’s exactly right, in my opinion. Fuck the NFA and everything that followed it, and while they do good work, fuck the NRA for its half-assed stance.

          4. A lot of the time, it’s not just “a weapon,” but a rifle, often an AR-15. Generally speaking, the only reasons to carry a long gun openly on the street is that (1) you’re a soldier or a militarized cop trying to intimidate people, (2) you’re on your way to the firing range, (3) you’re going hunting, or (4) you’re an asshole trying to prove to everyone that you can carry a rifle openly. (Reason (1) may be a subset of (4).) You certainly aren’t carrying that motherfucker around for self-defense, given that a discreetly holstered handgun would work much better for that purpose, while leaving your hands free to light a cigarette.

        3. I agree with both of you.

          Exercise your rights, but don’t be an asshole about it. The long gun thing probably steps over the asshole line. Why not just a pistole on the hip?

        4. I see cops in Walmarts and other public places carrying openly all the time. Are they being a$$holes for doing so? Are they undermining the argument for cops to be allowed to carry?

          1. It’s degenerate fear born of moral and psychological impotency. We’ve been made tame and cowardly.

            “The guy over there buying Pop Tarts is carrying a firearm on his hip/over his shoulder. Clearly, he’s a threat, and he’s only doing it to compensate for his miniscule genitals. LOL IM SO SUPERIOR.

            The reasons I have for believing this are HERP DERP. Hey, how ’bout them organic, responsibly sourced, community-farmed pomegranates?”

        5. Being an asshole in public generally doesn’t help you win arguments

          As this is a major tactic of the lefty/progressives, who have seen way too much of their agenda enacted, I’m going to have to disagree.

        6. I don’t know that it is quite up to the level of “disgrace”, but often it is deliberate provocation which I agree is not likely to be very helpful to the cause. Carrying a pistol openly on your belt is one thing, if people freak out about that, they are being morons. But I really don’t think that the groups of people walking around with their AR15s and whatnot are helping to improve people’s perceptions of firearm enthusiasts.

            1. Why do I think that? Mostly based on observations of the reactions of various people to more “in your face” open carry demonstrations.

              Why do I think that groups of people carrying long guns in surprising places is more provocative and unhelpful than someone with a handgun on their belt? That’s because carrying a handgun like that has a practical self defense purpose, while the people walking around with the long guns are clearly there to rub it in people’s faces. Which is their right. But I don’t think it helps.

        7. I wouldn’t call it disgraceful, just short-sighted. Like it or not, most of American society–even gun owners–is going to get nervous seening someone carrying a loaded rifle into a public place.

          That’s a perfectly rational psychological response to a potential threat, even if the carrier has no intention of actually hurting anyone. It’s a basic survival instinct.

          If you want to get more people on the pro-gun side, take them to a gun range and let them shoot with you for a while. Understanding leads to more allies in this case than provocation.

        8. I understand that it is legal in many cases, but all the extreme open carriers are doing is to increase the likelihood of it being made.illegal and/or be banned on various private properties.

          This. When California was considering the Mulford Act, which would ban the carrying of loaded weapons, the bill pretty much got assured of passage when the Black Panther Party (who had a pretty good understanding of what the Second Amendment was all about) decided to be assholes and show up at the State Capitol carrying rifles openly. (Of course, if the Panthers weren’t so much seeking to advance gun rights as to get publicity, then their plan succeeded admirably.)

      2. You don’t carry, AT people. Just carry.

      3. I think what he’s poking is more the “LOOK AT ME!!11!!”-ism of it than the fact that someone is exercising their rights. Surely you’ve seen obnoxious left-tards strutting around with their Che Guevara t-shirts on and lecturing anyone stupid enough to engage them about the evils of TEH KKKORPORASHUNZ and TEH KKKAPITALIZM!11!!!, right?

        It’s just annoying when those on the right do it. And I’m sure you’ve them too. Strutting around Wal-Mart with their gun conspicuously displayed on their hips, far too tight American flag T-shirt stretched to the breaking point ever their fat gut, Garth Broookes belt buckle, cowboy hat, and a “fuck you” expression on their face, just waiting for some pansy ass lib-tard to question them about their gun so they can give them a 15 minute lecture about the second ammendment?

        All of which is within their rights (both of them), and it’s well within their rights to be assholes about it, but it doesn’t make either of them any less annoying.

        1. I have never seen anyone matching that description…ever. Sounds more like an offensive strawman stereotype you concocted rather than something grounded in reality.

          1. I have never seen anyone matching that description…ever

            *shrug* I have. Whatever. The point still stands: obnoxious assholes, of any stripe, are fucking annoying. They have the right to be obnoxious assholes, I’m not saying they don’t, but I have the right to find them fucking annoying.

            1. well thanks for that tautological observation. The question is whether open-carry is an act of bad behavior in and of itself.

              1. The question is whether open-carry is an act of bad behavior in and of itself.

                No. Perhaps I hadn’t made that clear. It’s not the act of carrying that makes one an asshole. It’s being a self righteous attention whoring prick about it that makes one an asshole.

        2. When I see someone I don’t know open carrying, I make sure to stay away from them because I know if someone’s going to start shooting the place up, they’ll likely start with the obviously armed people. I keep.mine concealed for a reason.

          1. It doesn’t always work that way.

            1. I assume you.mean that the presence of a visible firearm will deter a shooter in the first place?

              1. That, and that in practice, if an attack DOES take place, the aggressor sometimes targets individuals who aren’t visibly armed because a visibly armed target promises to end your rampage too soon if you strike there first.

                It all depends on the mindset of the villain.

          2. That’s your right, db.

            I don’t have that take, myself. I tend to ignore open carry*, unless the person carrying is wearing a uniform (in which case I avoid as much as possible).

            *Not counting a little covert inspection of their piece.

          3. I make sure to stay away from them because I know if someone’s going to start shooting the place up, they’ll likely start with the obviously armed people.

            Really? Based on the mass shooting events I’ve read about, the shooters tend to fold up pretty quick once someone starts returning fire. They’re not emotionally prepared to deal with any sort of counterattack and they mentally collapse.

        3. Not really. Lecturing some pinko fuckbag about your freedom after being told you’re being an asshole for exercising your rights is exactly what anybody with a moral compass and balls should do.

          1. The point is, it’s likely you’re not being told you’re an asshole for exercising your rights, but for other reasons.

            1. Except that’s not what Palmer said nor is it what you said when you endorsed and added onto what Palmer said. If he or you have other criteria, we ask that you not make them private before telling us we’re wrong.

            2. I fly RW-era Patriot insignia and flags to celebrate my country and as a show of patriotism. Very, very openly. Always have, always will. Many retards have chastised me for it in exactly the same manner they chastise open carriers.

              I understand what you’re saying, but what some gutless turd thinks motivates me doesn’t worry me in the least.

              1. *turds on the street.

            3. The point is, it’s likely you’re not being told you’re an asshole for exercising your rights, but for other reasons.

              Well, to play devil’s advocate, there probably are quite a few “pinko fuckbags” who would consider you to be an asshole for carrying a gun no matter what. You could be a card carrying OWS type with all the “correct views” on Marxism vs. Capitalism, etc. but you just happen to be packing heat, and they’d still consider you to be an asshole because in one area, you’ve left the reservation. Their animism when it comes to guns runs that deep.

              But again, we’re talking about the people who do “LOOK AT ME!!!11!!!” style activism. They’re assholes no matter what they’re advocating for. I guess maybe I just don’t like activists who take up causes to the point of being self righteous pricks about it all.

    2. Open carry is fine. This is not fine. Fingerfucking loaded rifles in public = assholes.

      1. Hey Warty,ba friend tells me that the CMP has some really choice stuff for sale recently.

        1. I should get out to the store and blow some cash soon. I got some Garands and 1903s from there a few years ago, including one with the Pedersen device cutout in the receiver. I wouldn’t mind picking up a 1917 Enfield. Or, for that matter, the .22 target rifles they sell.

          1. I need to get a 1903.

  5. I sure hope someone is stupid enough to appeal this to SCOTUS.

    The inadvertent results (from the plaintiff’s point of view) would be wonderful to see.

  6. Does anyone notice how the most unconstitutional, ugly shit is happening in the very seat of our government- full of people who are sworn to protect said constitution?

    Yeah, let’s keep voting for them!

  7. Like Hobby Lobby and Halbig, he just brought suit becuase he hates Obama, women and children.

  8. “Having legal firearms owners around you makes you safer. The criminals are currently carrying concealed weapons?this shocks and surprises many people! But that’s the fact.”

    Just for the record, though, my right to own a firearm isn’t contingent on what’s in society’s interests generally.

    I’m glad that, statistically, people are safer when criminals know there are gun owners around, but if those statistics should change at some point in the future, my right to own a firearm wouldn’t change in any way.

    It’s easy to get confused. Since respecting every individual’s rights tends to be in society’s best interests, generally, some people start to think that our rights should only be protected IF IF IF they’re in society’s best interests.

    But my rights don’t exist for society’s benefit. My rights exist for my benefit. You shouldn’t violate my rights–even if doing so were in society’s best interests.

    Whenever we feel it necessary to explain to people that respecting an individual’s right to bear arms tends to make society safer, we should also try to work in something about how the purpose of my rights isn’t to make you feel safe. I am not here for your benefit. My rights do not exist for your benefit.

    1. You’re right Ken, but we are still at a delicate phase where people can be scared into demanding more gun control. I’d rather win this with politeness than get dragged back into an age where carry is severely limited until a couple of decade long court cases are decided.

      1. we are still at a delicate phase where people can be scared into demanding more gun control

        Judging by the reaction to the last two highly publicized mass shootings, I wonder if this is true.

        1. Interesting point.

      2. The problem is that the kind of thinking spills over into all sorts of other issues.

        People think who we marry, what intoxicants we can use, who we can hire to mow our lawns and babysit our children, whether we buy insurance, and how much of our paychecks we should be allowed to keep, etc., etc. all depend on what’s in society’s best interests generally–and that’s why we get to vote!

        Well guess what? My rights don’t exist for your benefit. My rights do not depend on a popularity contest…

        I’m perfectly happy to cite facts that show that when individuals have the freedom to make choices for themselves, all sorts of good things happen for society generally–but I don’t want that misused to justify what amounts to democratic socialism.

        A society where people are forced to justify the choices they make based on whether they’re good for everybody is not a free society. And some things may not be good for society!

        I can’t tell you that I know Scientology, pay day lenders, pornography, cigarettes, and cheese whiz are all good for society. There may be millions of things people decide to do for qualitative reasons that aren’t!

        If owning handguns isn’t one of those things, we’re lucky. But even if handgun owners weren’t so lucky, their right to own handguns shouldn’t be violated anyway.

        Who died and decided that our rights have to be justified in utilitarian terms in order to be protected by the government?

  9. Whoa, Tom Palmer was behind this? The guy is awesome, and this is such a good (hopefully lasting) win.

    1. He was originally a Plaintiff in Heller but was excluded because he never actually applied for — and been denied for — a permit.

  10. The case had been languishing in U.S. District Court in D.C. for mysterious reasons for five years and a Saturday decision release is unusual.

    Not mysterious to me. They sat on it, hoping for a change in SCOTUS personnel that might lead to reversal of Heller et al. Eventually, that became just unrealistic/embarrassing, so they released the opinion.

    1. I tend to disagree. The judge isn’t known for being a grabber and his summary judgement speaks volumes about his thoughts on the law. What also speaks volumes is his refusal to Grant an injunction until an appeal is heard.

      That was an epic smack down of government overreach. In all likelihood, he sought advice from someone up the totem pole, perhaps on the SC, and issued his decision after careful deliberation.

      1. Five years is a little much for “careful deliberation.” I think there is something else going on.

  11. Tony will be along shortly from the auto-driving car thread to admonish all of you for your gun culture and conflating gun deaths w/ gun violence.

    1. Tony can go sodomize himself with rusty pipe.

      1. There’s no such thing as a rusty pipe in Tony’s universe. All steel in his own personal utopia is organically grown on plants and certified FairTrade.

        1. I would have thought that that would mean that all the pipes were rusty.

        2. Also, is it possible to sodomize one’s self?

    2. Surprisingly when Reason had the other article on this by Bragg, he didn’t go into the retard rant about how we apparently have no right to guns anyways because the Second Amendment only protects states rights to have militias. I guess I was actually expecting more out of him. I think he’s getting lazier, or he’s accepted the truth.

  12. One of the most fascinating things I’ve witness is whenever I post something about the stupidity of gun control, the gun grabbers will try to say how wrong I am to only get obliterated by my friends who are quite knowledgable about guns and the laws that pertains to ownership. The gun grabbers only use emotions and skewed statistics to make their points while my gun advocate friends uses facts. What’s scary is that most of our gun laws are created by faulty logic, emotion, and skewed data.

    1. What’s scary is that most of our gun laws are created by faulty logic, emotion, and skewed data.

      FTFY. There’s a few exceptions, of course, but I’m guessing not many. Certainly not when it comes to victimless crimes, laws named after dead kids, and laws with idiotic acronyms that mean the exact of what the law will actually do.

      1. *exact opposite of…

        Typing fail.

  13. To,the above conversation, all is know is that I’d rather see people strolling through Walmart with a slung AR than see a hipster riding his penny-farthing down Main Street with his oversized headphones hooked up to a Walkman while wearing short pants and an ironic blazer over a PBR tank top.

    Talk about being an asshole.

    1. Just to help complete the picture, what’s the hipster listening to?

      1. Pat Boone.

        1. Is he open-carrying a Cricket rifle with a 1970’s brocade camera strap as a sling, and .22lr rounds in his hat band?

  14. If enough people openly carried in Wal-Mart the “look at me” factor would go away.

  15. The ultimate goal here is desensitization of the public to this. You see it enough and it becomes normal. Worked for the gays to a certain extent, and now the 2A crowd are using the same tactic. But just as there is a line between, say holding hands and Assless Chaps(tm) there is a line between OC of a holstered pistol and walking around with a rifle.

    1. I agree.

      While assholery shouldn’t infringe on someone’s rights, from a practical perspective it helps not to be one.

      1. Desensitizing someone requires that you activate their hyper-sensitive reflexes. I’m not so sure that assless chaps and/or long guns are a net negative if your goal is desensitization.

        After all, the reaction “Well, at least he’s wearing pants/carrying a holstered pistol” is the goal of desensitization. And you can’t get there unless that sentence ends with “rather than wearing assless chaps/carrying a rifle”.

        1. Are you suggesting that for maximum effect they need to be wearing assless chaps and carrying rifles?

  16. You know what I find remarkable.
    I haven’t seen much in the way of coverage of this.

    Drudge didn’t pick it up.
    Its not on CNN or even FoxNews front page.
    The only coverage I know on a news show was an interview with Emily Miller.

    I’m sure the usual suspects are privately in pants-wetting mode. They just aren’t all over TV.

    Bigger fish to fry I suppose.

    1. Maybe they’re to busy with another government scandal?

  17. Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Does Palmer carry a purse? Does Alan Gura?

    “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

    “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282

    Charles Nichols ? President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.