Open carry?

[Seth247]

First of all, I don't see this conflict in Section 1272 that is going to cause such a problem with anything in Section 1289.6. However, here is the language I'm talking about:
First, we would have replaced Section 1289.6.A.6 to with: "When carried in a holster that is wholly or partially visible or in a scabbard, case or with a sling designed for carrying firearms that is wholly or partially visible and the person is eighteen (18) years of age or older. Any person who carries a firearm in the manner provided for in this paragraph shall be prohibited from carrying the firearm into any of the places prescribed in subsection A of Section 1277 of this title; or"

Second, we would have added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly openly holstered or concealed without probable casue that a crime has been committed." The exact location this language would be placed in the section is still being debated. But, it will be added as well.

I'm going to have to side with veggie. Regardless of how much language is added, the bill would still only be a small step in the right direction. And when we later try to pass a real open carry bill, they would all be saying "but, we just gave you an open carry bill last time!"

I have absolutely zero faith that these clowns would pass a real, unrestricted, open carry bill after passing this thing.

 

[vvvvvvv]

First of all, I don't see this conflict in Section 1272 that is going to cause such a problem with anything in Section 1289.6. However, here is the language I'm talking about:
First, we would have replaced Section 1289.6.A.6 to with: "When carried in a holster that is wholly or partially visible or in a scabbard, case or with a sling designed for carrying firearms that is wholly or partially visible and the person is eighteen (18) years of age or older. Any person who carries a firearm in the manner provided for in this paragraph shall be prohibited from carrying the firearm into any of the places prescribed in subsection A of Section 1277 of this title; or"

Would that be in replacement of or addition to the language in the bill prior to the Virgin amendment?

There weren't any restrictions in the bill as it went to the floor. It simply said you could open carry if you had a reasonable fear of badily harm. If you know the crime stats, you'll have that covered just stepping out your front door. ... I don't see the restrictions you're talking about.

Statistics don't work like that in criminal court when something has to be tested as being "reasonable". Yes, they can be argued, but they aren't definitive. If my criminal defense attorney told me that, I'd fire them.

Second, we would have added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly openly holstered or concealed without probable casue that a crime has been committed." The exact location this language would be placed in the section is still being debated. But, it will be added as well.

That language does not address questioning a citizen about "reasonable fear of bodily harm" if they are carrying a firearm openly and are the subject of an arrest, detainment, or traffic stop.

I think she means could you write the story for me, get it past my anti gun editor, and not tell anyone you wrote it.

That's exactly what she means... but sometimes, you have to play ball if you want information in the paper or on the air.

 

[Werewolf]

Got an email back from ABbie Alford. Quick reply.

"I appreciate your insight and thank you for bringing these statistics to my attention. Would you mind attributing these statistics so if I report on a future open carry story I can include some of these statistics? Thank you again, I appreciate your efforts and your voice on this matter,"

By attribute the statistics does she just mean telling her how I got them? Because I just took the Census Bureau-sourced 2010 census information from Wikipedia on the percentages of the U.S. population that live in each state that has similar laws to what's being proposed here. (The sum of the percentages of the populations of WA, OR, ID, NV, SD, AZ, CO, NE, KS, WI, MI, LA, AL, OH, PA, WV, DE, NC, VA, and KY). I'll work on finding a non-Wikipedia source, even though the numbers came straight from the 2010 census.

Tell her what you said above. The information is available directly from the US Census of 2010. If you want to make her job easier just pull the sources referenced in the wiki article - easy enough to check them.

The fact that she replied to you at all is a good sign, maybe.

Still can't hurt to reply.

 

[Peacemaker]

It seems to me that the section in HB1647, "Reasonable fear of bodily harm" could be interpreted in many ways and leaves the door open for law enforcement, judges, and the attorney general to determine what reasonable fear means. With the additional language mentioned it might make it a little safer to open carry without fear of being harassed but I think the language in the law needs to be very strong and positive to scare zealous law enforcement from attempting to intimidate honest citizens from exercising their rights.

 

[CHenry]

The problem with 1647 is it is still restrictive.
Would the general populous agree to restrictions on other amendments?
1A: new law, your right to free speech is now limited to only AM broadcast radio or publically with the following restriction :you can only speak publicly from a podium in front of a huge audience so if you fear public speaking you must keep quiet or be arrested.
How would that go over?
And why is 2A viewed any differently? For cryin out loud, I don't understand these idiots!

 

[Burk Cornelius]

Great point. I used that argument the other day with someone who "doesn't get it". What if newspapers had to get a permit in order to write a story about the president but all other articles were OK?

The problem with that logic is, well, its logical......

The problem with 1647 is it is still restrictive.
Would the general populous agree to restrictions on other amendments?
1A: new law, your right to free speech is now limited to only AM broadcast radio or publically with the following restriction :you can only speak publicly from a podium in front of a huge audience so if you fear public speaking you must keep quiet or be arrested.
How would that go over?
And why is 2A viewed any differently? For cryin out loud, I don't understand these idiots!

 

[abajaj11]

The problem with 1647 is it is still restrictive.
Would the general populous agree to restrictions on other amendments?
1A: new law, your right to free speech is now limited to only AM broadcast radio or publically with the following restriction :you can only speak publicly from a podium in front of a huge audience so if you fear public speaking you must keep quiet or be arrested.
How would that go over?
And why is 2A viewed any differently? For cryin out loud, I don't understand these idiots!

The 2A is viewed differently because in our culture, guns are no longer considered an everyday tool, whereas words are still considered that (in many cultures words are banned as well, as we know).
While we have made some headway from the dark days of the 1990's when all 2A rights appeared lost, we have a long way to go. We all need to make guns more acceptable to our youth, and train them in their use, otherwise the next generation will consider gun control to be "reasonable". The proof is already evident in the non-rural states, where most folks have never used guns and view them with fear.
Guns need to be made normal and everyday again, not objects of fear or worship.

 

[tagillespie]

Veggie, the language would have replalced what was in the bill pre-virgin amendment (and that is still the plan).

 

[CHenry]

Anyone catch the OC piece on FOX 23 last night?

Hope you don't mind, I posted your very helpfull stats on the OK2A blog page.

 

[cowmugger]

Guns need to be made normal and everyday again, not objects of fear or worship.

IMO, open carry is crucial to this. A certain group, with Hollyweirds help, have mainstream themselves to the point that certain military policies have been changed. Think about....what if we could get guns so normal, we would not be surprised to see a two soldiers with their guns.