Should People Be Allowed to Carry Guns Openly? >
In Parts of the Country, Open Carry Hardly Raises an Eyebrow
There is nothing wrong with openly carrying a firearm in a peaceable manner while going about one's business
April 25, 2012
About Dave Workman:
Dave Workman is senior editor of TheGunMag.com and is the co-author of several books related to firearms rights. He is also a nationally recognized firearms authority and he writes a daily blog, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner.
The "open carry" movement has reminded people in many states that the right to bear arms is not limited to the growing number of people who choose to conceal their legally carried defensive sidearms.
While the practice may seem anachronistic and is alarming to some, it remains legal over much of the American landscape. Whether it "should be" allowed seems a rather moot question, since it is already "allowed" either by statute or the fact that there is no law prohibiting it in various jurisdictions where open carry is practiced. In states with specific right-to-bear-arms provisions in their state constitutions, one can reasonably argue that open carry is constitutionally protected.
[See the latest political cartoons.]
If we were to outlaw open carry, would it not then be incumbent on the states to recognize that concealed carry could no longer be subject to licensing or the issuance of a permit, as it would be the only means for citizens to exercise a constitutionally protected right to bear arms? It might also bring more pressure on Congress to adopt a national concealed carry reciprocity law.
Yet opponents of concealed carry have endeavored to demonize that practice by repeatedly alluding to "hidden guns" as though it were done with some sinister motive. Their bottom line is that they do not want anyone carrying guns other than the police.
Though open carry does alarm some people, there is nothing fundamentally wrong about carrying a firearm in a peaceable manner while going about one's business. There was a more peaceful time in this country when it was common practice.
[Read The Real Reason the Left Is Attacking ALEC.]
Gun control advocates have long insisted that the government and the public have a right to know who has a firearm. What better way to visibly accomplish that than by accepting open carry once again as common behavior?
In many parts of the country, open carry is as it has always been: a practice that hardly raises an eyebrow.
Perhaps the real question we should be asking is, why should we prohibit something that cannot be shown to have hurt anything other than someone's sensibilities?
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.
- Other Arguments
-
#1128481
Yes — A gun carried openly is a deterrent to crime
JERRY HENRY, Executive Director for GeorgiaCarry.Org
-
#2101073
Yes — Open carry laws are very much in keeping with the framers' view of the constitutional right to bear arms
JOHN PIERCE, Co-founder of OpenCarry.org
-
#486366
Yes — The purpose of public display of guns is to accustom people to the idea that they are not a threat to the lawful
LARRY PRATT, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America
-
#583356
Yes — Openly carrying a hand cannon may prevent a criminal from attacking
RALPH SHORTEY, Republican State Senator in Oklahoma
-
#680999
No — Open carry increases the risk that someone will be injured or killed from the accidental or intentional use of firearms
LINDSAY NICHOLS, Staff Attorney with Legal Community Against Violence
-
#774999
No — People who choose to live in peace have the right not to be exposed to weapons and violence
CONSTANCE N. JOHNSON, Democratic State Senator in Oklahoma
-
#8751001
No — Handguns do not serve as deterrents but rather consistently threaten our safety
JOSH SUGARMANN, Founder and Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center
-
#9731012
No — Open carry is dangerous to the very foundation of our democracy
JOSHUA HORWITZ, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
