Open carry is the way forward.

I've been aware of the open carry debate for some time, and even did some serious thinking on the topic four years and one state ago, but now that I'm open carrying, and thinking more about it, I've had a change of heart.

It's obvious to me that Open Carry is the best way for us to advance our gun rights.

The gun rights supporters who fight open carry have a few arguments I'd like to go over.

It's not socially normal!

Well, duh. That's the problem. If you are afraid to carry your gun openly, where legal to do so, you're acknowledging that the carrying of firearms by private citizens is still taboo in your community. If we keep acting like carrying a gun is something we need to hide, people will continue demanding we hide it. Is that acceptable to you? Or would you rather that change?

Soccer moms will clutch their pearls!

I didn't realize we lived in Europe, where someone being offended is a legitimate argument to stop you from exercising your rights. Someone will always be offended, and the great thing about America, is that it's ok to be offended, and to offend. When someone says that you carrying a gun makes them scared, you smile politely, and say, "Have a nice day, Ma'am." and walk away. I can't even believe this is a common argument.

All those casually anti-gun people are walking around, right now, thinking that a small police force is all that prevents the barbarians from overrunning the city. They don't know, or choose not to believe that regular citizens are contributing to the security they enjoy by carrying firearms around them all the time. Don't allow them to reject reality. Show them the truth, and make them come to terms with it. It's not your job to participate in their fantasy.

Also remember that you might be surprised by the lack of response. This guy open carried (when legal) all over the place in Southern California. Are you going to tell me some Kommiefornian was exercising rights you are afraid to? What's the matter, McFly? Chick-fil-a?

The cops will hassle you!

I didn't realize that making a law man uncomfortable was a reason to not exercise your rights. If open carry is a legal activity, wouldn't that make harassment for doing so illegal? America is a nation of laws. If the cops don't like 'em, they can fight to change 'em. Until then, we have this right, and you know what they say about a right unexercised.

There are practical concerns which might prevent you from standing up for your rights, we all have important things to do, so refusing a vehicle search and waiting an hour for the drug dogs to arrive when you're on your way to the airport to fly out on vacation might be beyond your level of tolerance. But don't let this convince you that everything you do is more important than exercising your rights.

This argument has some validity in states where open carry is flatly illegal, but there are many more areas where the right to open carry has not been explicitly confirmed, or it's allowed by exclusion, or it has conflicting ordinances. It is your responsibility to determine how legal open carrying is in your area, but if you look around, I bet you'll find people are already doing it. Yes, even if it's the guy who open carries an AK and a Ron Paul sign in the middle of downtown. If he gets arrested, and charged, and the charges stick, you've got your answer. But in most cases open carriers who know the laws rarely get hooked up. Just hassled.

Videos like this are all over youtube, waiting to be watched. If you do watch them, try not to be alarmed by the thrill you may experience when the tiny little citizen says "No." to the big scary law man, and then the big scary law man gets all Ezekiel 25:17 on him, and the little citizen, threatened with the wrath of an angry demigod, simply repeats "No." That's the thrill of freedom.

So, when a cop tells you he's going to arrest you if you don't hide your gun, tell him you'd like to speak to his supervisor, that you are carrying where it is legal to do so, that your lawyer has confirmed this, and that you'll file harassment charges against him faster than the DA can reject the case. Like Claire Wolfe says; Intimidate back.

Finally, keep in mind that there are varying degrees of "harassment" that you can choose to accept based on your comfort level. Some police will do everything within their power to stop you from doing what you're doing. Some will ask for (not demand) your ID so they can run you like a criminal to make sure you're not a felon. Some will just ask for a name they can put in their report. It's up to you to choose what level of "harassment" you're willing to put up with. Just know that many encounters may be diffused with a little voluntary compliance.

You're just an attention whore!

You're damn right I am, and you should be too!

It's about time private citizens carrying guns got some attention outside of the usual "On the lighter side of the news: Granny's got a gun!" news story. You know the ones I'm talking about. Where the anchor cheerfully relates how a man broke into her house to rape and murder her, and he got "mooooore than he bargained for!" as "Janie's got a gun" plays in the background. If they're lucky, there's even a surveillance video they can play cartoon sounds over as the rapist falls all over himself fleeing for his life. No matter public opinion, the media is STILL closed to the idea of private citizens carrying.

For all the progress we've made, "Man stops robbery with gun" still isn't news, nor is "Rapist runs after woman draws gun." We can't trust the media to spread the truth about carrying a firearm, so it's up to us to take it to every town and city we can, to reach everyone we pass the same way we reach individuals we take to the range one at a time. It's obviously not as complete a transformation, but we can make it up in volume, because the casual anti-gun population have not challenged their premises. They exist in their little bubble where everyone agrees guns are bad, so no one even feels the need to explore it. Pop their bubble. Let them see a regular person carrying a gun in a regular situation, and let them see that this person was polite, pleasant, and didn't start shooting when they bumped carts at the grocery store.

You'll make my fight harder!

"Right now, we're tip-toeing by the casually anti-gun population, and we've been making progress! If you Wookie Suiters jump in front of them and yell 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!11' then public reaction will snap back, and we'll be worse off!

That argument might have been valid before the Aurora shooting lacked public backlash on guns entirely. We've tipped the scale to 51%, and people are starting to realize that guns are just tools and they can be used for good or bad. The grey ponytails are always going to hate you for carrying a gun, concealed or not. The "respect mah authoritah" cops will always hate you for carrying their power symbol, concealed or not. Hiding your gun from them so you don't feel hassled is wrong. You won't be able to change their minds. But revealing your gun can have a positive impact on casual anti-gunners.

The idea of open carrying to a theater in Colorado right after the Aurora shooting would have been rejected by most in the gun community as tactless, dangerous, and damaging but I think it's exactly what should have happened.

Then, when some people freak out and overreact, it can make the news, and casual anti-gunners can look at the story and astonish themselves by thinking, "But he wasn't going to shoot anyone." This is how minds are changed. We need to direct this emotion for us, instead of waiting for it to turn against us.

Open carry is tactically unsound!

This is a completely valid opinion one can have in ones decision to open carry or not. However, your opinion is just that. I can certainly agree that there are tactical concerns in revealing you have a gun rather than keeping it secret, but the goal I'm trying to outline here is a society where open carry is the norm.

The idea of cities, counties, or entire states where the population is empowered to open carry, and does so, has significant tactical advantages over what we have now. Which is, an average of less than 2% of the the population with carry permits, and only a fraction of them actively carrying, and those who do choosing to hide their guns.

If you don't care about gun rights, and only care about being able to carry to protect you, and yours, continue carrying concealed. It's totally pragmatic, and no one can blame you for making your choice. But know that you are standing stationary in the political arena, and hoping the winds never blow you backwards. Shouldn't you advance instead of fighting to maintain the status quo?

The end of the fight.

I have a vision for gun rights in America that you very likely share. The only difference is that we disagree on how to get there. We've been moving the ball forward, one yard at a time, for decades now, and much is owed to this strategy. But the balances have tipped, and we've got a whole new generation who is open to the idea that private ownership of guns has value in a civilized society. We need to take this momentum and direct it to where we can make the most progress. If we don't take this opportunity to show everyone, not just those who choose to listen, but EVERYONE, that private citizens with guns are doing their part every day, we could lock this up for generations to come.

I hope that we haven't been on the defensive for so long, fighting tooth and nail for meager gains so often, that we've become afraid to floor it when we see a path to the finish line.

Open carried to Kroger

Didn't hear the sound of anyone fainting, speaking in hushed tones to 911, or pearls being clutched.

No one even seemed to acknowledge it. Honestly wonder if anyone even saw it...

Quote of the every form of tyranny

Upon the altar of God I pledge eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
~Thomas Jefferson

I may disagree with your douchebaggery, but I'll defend to the death your right to be a douchebag.

Sometimes being a douchebag is a duty.

I must say that I probably would have done the same thing.

Now they want to form a HOA after the fact? Good luck getting him to sign up, douchebags. After that, good luck trying to get him to obey your strongly worded letters.

I think I'd paint it something obnoxious for a few weeks and paint it to something more pleasing to my own eyes. Unless they kept insisting. Then I might do something I don't like just because they don't like it even more. Petty? Nah. I don't think of it as being petty when I'm teaching a lesson.

You remember when you were a kid, and there was that one kid who always got picked on because he always had a big reaction to it? Yeahhh... Guess some of these neighbors either didn't know that kid, or WERE that kid...

From Uncle

The state of California gun shows

Visited the fun show last weekend, and realized that we've come so far in a few short years.

Things you can buy at the gun show;
All parts to make a complete AR, or complete rifles in California configuration. Complete AK clones, and all parts and accessories. Ditto for FALs, AUGs Galils, and any other EBR you can imagine. You will pay the California tax (+10% for no reason), and it will be sold to you in a legal configuration (mag locked or no "evil" features) but you are the one who makes sure it stays in a legal configuration, not the sellers.

You can buy all parts of regular capacity (>10 round) magazines for almost any firearm you can find at the show, and more. You WILL pay a premium, and these parts are not to be assembled into a new working magazine (they're only for replacing worn out magazines you legally own). Because there is no registration or tracking of legally owned regular capacity magazines, there is no way for anyone to know that you've created a new magazine with these parts, so... just... don't. I guess...

Longguns older than 50 years old may be sold by one private party to another cash and carry. This means that if you find a guy with a Garand slung on his back with a sign that says "For Sale," prove your California residency, tell him you're not a prohibited person, and put $800 in his hand, he'll hand you the rifle free and clear. Also, black powder rifles and handguns (that cannot be easily converted centerfire) are not considered firearms, and you can buy them as easily as you would a sandwich. By the way, pp to pp transfers have nothing to do with gun shows, or any kind of loophole within them. They can take place in a Ralphs parking lot. There is no magic at the gun show.

You can buy ballistic vests so long as you indicate you are not a felon, and you can buy as much ammo as your plastic will let you. You can buy AK flats and jigs, but good luck finding any parts kits (those dried up a while ago).

Any transfer of firearms between dealer and private party, or between private parties of a longgun under 50 years old or a handgun must go through an FFL, and undergo a 10 day waiting period. There are many FFLs from many different local areas around the show, doing transfers. 10 day waiting periods are individual to the gun, so if you buy two rifles and one handgun, you can have them all in 10 days. Only one handgun per 30 days may be purchased, but you can stack them. Buying three handguns means you can take home your first in 10 days, then 30 days from the first was DROS'ed the dealer runs DROS on the second, and 10 days later you can pick it up, etc. I know folks who have handguns purchased out to three years.

We still are stuck with the "safe" list, so any handgun sold by a dealer must be on the California safe list, but handguns NOT on the safe list and owned by private parties may be bought and transfered to you. These are usually grandfathered in before the "safe" list, or brought into the state by people moving here. Cops are exempt from the safe list, and can make good money buying off-list guns, and reselling them for a healthy profit. Not sure how the ATF feels about this, but hey.

Most of this progress is due SOLELY to the efforts of the CalGuns Foundation, which started out as little more than a forum of gunnies who got together and brainstormed. The gaps in California's laws were identified, confirmed, and exploited. Even now, CGF has a brilliant lineup of cases waiting to be triggered to effectively nullify "may issue" CCW permitting, prove the "safe" list unconstitutional, and more.

Gunnies all over America frequently express their desire for Kommiefornia to break off, and sink into the ocean. While they complained, California continued to produce stupid gun laws that metastasize to the rest of the country. After Heller, gun owners went on the legal offensive, and California was no different. So if you want to stop bad laws from making it to capitol hill and YourTown USA, why not help fight it before it gains steam? Support CGF in its fight to defeat the laws that so many other states (and districts!) based THEIR laws off of. An ounce of prevention, and all that.

What has YOUR state done for gun rights lately?

If any other Kommiefornians want to add to this post, please feel free to comment!

Rights are like muscles...

...They disappear if you don't use them.

"What illegal activity do you suspect me of?"
"I have no idea."
"That's not probable cause."
"Right now sir, I'm pretty sure you're a terrorist. [laughter]"

How droll.


[direct link]

A few things...

I'm not sure if he is required to pull off the road for secondary inspection. But by staying on the road and blocking traffic, he gave them an incentive to let him go. Off the road, this may have gone on for hours. He could have pulled off the road, submitted to secondary inspection, and sued for harassment after they found nothing since there was no probable cause, but how successful that may have been is in doubt. Note the numerous attempts to get him to say that he wasn't going to move. Had he said he wasn't going to move, he would have been obstructing traffic, which is against the law. Instead he insisted he wanted to leave, but was being detained by them.

He knew he had to stop, and stopped. There was no probable cause beyond that, because refusing to answer questions is not probable cause. If he had answered in any way, the agents could use their experience to determine whether or not he was lying, but not on a refusal.

At the end where he was asked to provide a drivers' license, I'm not sure if he was really required. Whenever you are operating a motor vehicle, you are required to provide the license to (state?) law enforcement officials (possibly also proof of insurance, registration). But I'm not sure if federal border patrol agents have the power to demand to see his license, and I'm not sure if they can detain him at a border patrol checkpoint, and then ask him to provide his license for operating a motor vehicle. If those troopers the BP said were on their way arrived, he would have had to provide his license and registration, but I'm not sure how you transfer custody of someone being detained for a BP checkpoint to a traffic cop. They could have had the cop pull him over after they said he was free to go, but then the cop needs PC, and then he'd only be required to provide his documentation, and demand his ticket.

Also, note the repeated lies told to him by border patrol agents. There is no legal requirement for them to tell citizens the truth, it is the citizen's duty to understand the law, and act within it. The agent accuses him of interfering with a federal investigation, which is a felony. Were that the case, they could force entry, arrest him, and charge him with that crime. They did not. Note the agent attempts to put words in his mouth, "So you're refusing to show valid ID?" A lack of answer, or an affirmative answer results in probable cause. Note that questions were answered with questions, this is a common tactic because the agent doesn't have to answer questions, but their authority implies that you do. Technically, "Am I being detained?" "Are you a US citizen?" Could be repeated for hours. If the citizen attempts to leave prior to being approved to leave, he will be arrested for fleeing a detainment. The last little part where the agent is "just trying to make conversation" is still questioning. There is no "going off the record" in this conversation. I'm guessing this was the last tactic recommended by the agent's superior before telling him to leave.

Did you notice the little scoff at the end? "Did you get the idea to do this from checkpointusa.org, sir?" First he's a suspicious character, then he's trafficking contraband, then he's a terrorist, then they ask if he got the idea from a web site that talks about American citizens refusing to submit to these checkpoints? He knows he's legal. They know he's legal. They're just wasting his time so they can measure their authoritative penis. They basically admit it at the end when they say their superiors feel that they have better things to do than play this game with him. That's how they view this person exercising his rights. As if he's playing a game, and they want to play right back.

At the end of the video he is told he is free to go, and confirms he is free to go, but he is not allowed to leave because the agents were standing in front of his car. At this point, he could have called 911, and told them he was being falsely imprisoned by officers who specifically said he was free to go, and he feared for his life. If I tell you that you are free to leave a room, and physically block the exit, and refuse to move, that is imprisonment.

"This is an exercise in [citizen] obedience training."

UPDATED THE THIRD

"Leave our checkpoint IMMEDIATELY."
UPDATE: Click here for why this guy had such a short fuse.

You like the border patrol agent who took a picture of him taking pictures?
It reminded me of something from Rob's excellent post;

Take for instance the case of Ezra Levant, a Canadian publisher brought up before the laughable "Human Rights Commission" for the unspeakable act of publishing the Mohammad cartoons. Watch the videos he has of his ordeal. Watch how detached the "human rights officer" is from the whole affair. For her, it's just a job. She gets a sheet of paper that says do X, she does X. The fact that she is is a tine in the pitchfork of fascism is lost on her. The fact that she is instrumental in crushing free speech bothers her about as much as deciding what she will be having for lunch.

"Hey look, this dude's recording us! What a douche. I'll go record him! Heh. What's his problem?"

He has recorded this check point before, this is why he asked if she already knew who he was. He made this one about a month before the above one. It's worth watching.

"You can ask me what ever you want."
Note there are no orders issued, only forceful requests. Notice also that there was very little actual answering of questions. Questions were met with questions.

Check out this video at the same checkpoint. Note how the officer doesn't ask him to stop recording, but contends that by recording the exchange, he is creating a traffic hazard. Unbelievable.

I've also decided to add a tag that I didn't really want to add. This clenches it. The tag is Double-Plus Ungood

UPDATE: Hazel Stone, of The Line Is Here, is taking me to task in the comment section. The best way to change hearts and minds is with open debate! If you disagree, please attempt to change my mind, and allow me the same courtesy.
UPDATE: Blogi has joined the fray, with his keen ability to spot BS from a mile away!
also, that rhymes