When I lived in Tucson, many people open carried and no one seemed to really care. There weren't shootouts every day and people weren't drawing on each other in the streets. I am sure the same is true in Alaska and they have a statistically higher occurrence of depression as well. The amount of people killed by firearms is till lower than those killed by motor vehicles but I don't see people shrinking back in fear from some other person's SUV. Only in places where firearms have been grossly stigmatized, do we see issues with the public fearing the tool. We didn't have anti-vehicle campaigns when some crazy guy drove his SUV into a preschool killing a bunch of kids instantly with his vehicle. Every Saturday morning at 0600 on KTLA news I have seen multiple stories of homicidal hit and runs going on 5 months STRAIGHT! I walk into work first thing in the morning and see that some other lady(generally) has been ran over and left for dead with the person fleeing the scene. It barely gets any news coverage. Relegated to ridiculous time slots that no one is really up to watch or cares about. I bet if some crazy people executed 1 random person every Saturday morning in my area you'd see a hell of a lot more coverage about it. Especially in CA that has a very strongly built-in anti-firearm agenda, we're a society that demonizes the tool at every chance that we get and ignore anything that deflates that case. The confirmation bias for this is extremely against firearms at here and they make it sound like the devil has possessed all firearms and is out to hunt little children.
It's actually kinda sad that people would not exercise their own rights if they want to in fear of making others uncomfortable. Our forefathers and framers of the Constitution were afraid of this very issue and wanted prevent this very thing from happening. They referred to it as the "tyranny of the majority." The views and opinions and wants of the majority, automatically outweighing and drowning out the needs and wants of the minority. By shrinking back and accepting this, you've handed over your very constitutionally given right to public majority. This same public majority more than 60 years ago by the way, didn't believe black people had the right to equality or even vote.
If what you want to do is fully legal, and protected, you should go and do it and not worry about what "others" think. If you look at a place like Alaska or Tucson where a huge portion of the population open carries and the crime rate is still declining, it deflates the anti-firearm agenda. By hiding and conceding to them, you are giving them the go ahead to further reach and strip your Second Amendment rights. They're like government, the more you give them, the more they'll try and take. When firearm owners oppose open carry, they use it as "ammunition" against carrying altogether and work their way to attempt firearm bans. We saw it in California just recently. We had open carry, the Antis won their agenda due to having a liberal majority in the Senate and Assembly and governor and open carry was made illegal. They then made new sub-laws that gave LEO chiefs more room to deny CCW licenses. Later we then saw San Francisco do an outright BAN on personally owned firearms with LA drafting sister legislation. The Federal courts thankfully intervened and struck down the San Francisco law but we still have a bunch of other things that were added in place that have made being a firearm owner in CA akin to being a democratic Christian in an ISIS convention. Many so-called firearm owners and Second Amendment enthusiasts were polled and the Antis used it as grounds to strike down open carry in CA.
So in the end, open carry for places that have it, is an integral part of your Second Amendment rights in your state. It is often very closely linked to concealed carry and those in the anti-firearm crows like to use the compromising nature of firearm owners as a way to divide them and defeat them piecemeal. You should use places like Chicago, Washington D.C., New York and California as examples of what can happen if you concede and try to meet with them halfway. The opposition is going to take it and run with it and firearm owners are going to quickly find themselves facing an uphill battle that they may not be able to win.
It's a right that's for now guaranteed you by the constitution. If we keep on being "meh" about it, it may just see the necessary votes needed to amend the Second Amendment right out of the Bill of Rights. Whether it's open carry, concealed carry or even rights to ownership, we should be standing firm and not conceded to the majority. We DO have things in place to protect the minority but that minority has to stand up for it's own rights to use them.
If a police force really wants to use such strong armed methods, there are plenty of pro 2nd lawyers around and you'll have a VERY easy win in court when you sue them for millions. Bonus if you're an ethnic minority. It's why I highly doubt that the police will go out of it's way to handle such cases different or target open carry owners specifically because that'd open them up to litigation that would be backed by one of the most powerful interest groups in the country. Especially in Texas where most every Republican politician lives off of the NRA/ILA backing. It's actually how Texas was able to sign this law in the first place.
It's actually kinda sad that people would not exercise their own rights if they want to in fear of making others uncomfortable. Our forefathers and framers of the Constitution were afraid of this very issue and wanted prevent this very thing from happening. They referred to it as the "tyranny of the majority." The views and opinions and wants of the majority, automatically outweighing and drowning out the needs and wants of the minority. By shrinking back and accepting this, you've handed over your very constitutionally given right to public majority. This same public majority more than 60 years ago by the way, didn't believe black people had the right to equality or even vote.
If what you want to do is fully legal, and protected, you should go and do it and not worry about what "others" think. If you look at a place like Alaska or Tucson where a huge portion of the population open carries and the crime rate is still declining, it deflates the anti-firearm agenda. By hiding and conceding to them, you are giving them the go ahead to further reach and strip your Second Amendment rights. They're like government, the more you give them, the more they'll try and take. When firearm owners oppose open carry, they use it as "ammunition" against carrying altogether and work their way to attempt firearm bans. We saw it in California just recently. We had open carry, the Antis won their agenda due to having a liberal majority in the Senate and Assembly and governor and open carry was made illegal. They then made new sub-laws that gave LEO chiefs more room to deny CCW licenses. Later we then saw San Francisco do an outright BAN on personally owned firearms with LA drafting sister legislation. The Federal courts thankfully intervened and struck down the San Francisco law but we still have a bunch of other things that were added in place that have made being a firearm owner in CA akin to being a democratic Christian in an ISIS convention. Many so-called firearm owners and Second Amendment enthusiasts were polled and the Antis used it as grounds to strike down open carry in CA.
So in the end, open carry for places that have it, is an integral part of your Second Amendment rights in your state. It is often very closely linked to concealed carry and those in the anti-firearm crows like to use the compromising nature of firearm owners as a way to divide them and defeat them piecemeal. You should use places like Chicago, Washington D.C., New York and California as examples of what can happen if you concede and try to meet with them halfway. The opposition is going to take it and run with it and firearm owners are going to quickly find themselves facing an uphill battle that they may not be able to win.
It's a right that's for now guaranteed you by the constitution. If we keep on being "meh" about it, it may just see the necessary votes needed to amend the Second Amendment right out of the Bill of Rights. Whether it's open carry, concealed carry or even rights to ownership, we should be standing firm and not conceded to the majority. We DO have things in place to protect the minority but that minority has to stand up for it's own rights to use them.
If a police force really wants to use such strong armed methods, there are plenty of pro 2nd lawyers around and you'll have a VERY easy win in court when you sue them for millions. Bonus if you're an ethnic minority. It's why I highly doubt that the police will go out of it's way to handle such cases different or target open carry owners specifically because that'd open them up to litigation that would be backed by one of the most powerful interest groups in the country. Especially in Texas where most every Republican politician lives off of the NRA/ILA backing. It's actually how Texas was able to sign this law in the first place.
