Quote of the day–Brady Campaign

The open display of firearms in public places is inherently threatening and intimidating, and poses risks to those nearby, to law enforcement and to the community. For example, when open carry has occurred in retail stores, other customers quickly become alarmed and the police often are called to the scene, creating a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. 

Brady Campaign
February 2010
Gun Lobby Backed Efforts Open Carry Guns
Emphasis in the original.
[It is true there are risk with open carry. But it is also true there are benefits. The Brady Campaign, like the bigots they are, refuse to acknowledge the benefits.

It is not true the open display of firearms in public places is inherently threatening and intimidating. Is a police officer at Starbucks and having a cup of coffee and chatting with the store manager inherently threatening and intimidating? Of course not. What the Brady Campaign finds inherently threatening and intimidating is private citizens possessing firearms. They are vehemently opposed to people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They have not been able to get the legislatures to enact laws infringing the 2nd Amendment so now they are attempting to get businesses to prohibit the exercise of these rights. This is no different than having interracial marriage ban laws struck down or fail to pass such laws in the legislature then starting a campaign advocating restaurants refuse to serve such couples.

As I have pointed out before the response to gun ownership and the carrying of firearms in public is a cultural issue. One 911 dispatcher I know in the Seattle area says they frequently get “man with a gun” calls. But unless the caller can articulate a reasonable cause for alarm they caller is politely told to take a chill pill. The Brady Campaign wishes to inflame public opinion and propagate a culture of distrust and alarm over the exercise of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Yes, that culture exists in parts of the U.S. today but just as with interracial marriage laws of the past that doesn’t mean the culture is appropriate or it should be encouraged.

It is time for all Americans to start judging people by the content of the character rather than the color of their skin or the carrying of a self defense tool.

Yeah, I think it’s going to be Brady Campaign Week here all week.–Joe]

7 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Brady Campaign

  1. What short memories….here in Ohio first they were for it, now they are against it:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6598

    “Consider this, from the Columbus Dispatch, who had been editorializing against efforts to pass right-to-carry reform in Ohio for years:

    “Ohioans already have the right to carry guns and other weapons openly but not concealed. Anyone who believes he is in danger can holster a pistol on his waist or tote a shotgun around wherever he goes.” – June 22, 2001
    And then there was this, from Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence founder Toby Hoover:

    “If [you] really believe that [you] will be safer and []you have] a good reason to carry a gun then [you] ought to carry openly.” – October 16, 2003.
    Ohio’s lone voice for the so-called “Million” Mom March, Lori O’Neill, also advocated for open carry:

    “Supporters of a concealed-carry law claim that their rights to self-protection are compromised by the ban on carrying a hidden gun. But what could be more of a deterrent to violent crime than the sight of a person carrying a gun openly? In case of attack by a violent criminal, an openly carried gun is far more accessible than one that is stuffed in a pocket or purse.” – October 22, 2003

  2. Here in Texas we have a very good concealed handgun license system, no thanks to former governor Anne Richards and much thanks to the man who succeeded her, in part due to this issue, GW Bush. However, we have no open carry of handguns. Period.

    There are some efforts every legislative session to start to try to attempt the beginning of slight movement towards thinking about changing this, but nothing ever gets beyond mentioning it. One group, the TSRA I think, put up a billboard advertising the issue, with Oleg Volk graphics, but nothing much came of it. So in Texas you can ride your horse with your 30-30 Winchester lever action rifle in your rifle scabbard beside your saddle, or drive your pickup truck with a shotgun framed in the rear window, but you cannot go strapped openly.

    What changes would occur in public consciousness about firearms if a hogleg or a Glock were seen every Saturday in the aisles of Walmart? I suspect most people would think the carrier was a police detective in plain clothes. Some would get scared, but most would be polite enough to keep that to themselves.

    Only time will tell what will come of this issue in Texas and elsewhere. I can see a Supreme Court case over open handgun carry, with the arguments made that (1) there is an individual right to bear arms of the commonly used types, confirmed in Heller and (soon) expanded to the states by McDonald, and handguns are very common firearms; (2)concealed carry requires licensing by the state (except in Alaska and Vermont, I think); and (3) a license to exercise an individual right is a big constitutional no-no. Therefore, open carry cannot be legislated against.

    Of course, brandishing a firearm or threatening with a deadly weapon would still be clearly criminal (as they are already) so no new laws would be required, just the striking down of all state laws that forbid open carry of handguns. I wonder if, or where, on Gura’s list of planned cases such a test of open carry is scheduled.

  3. Question: how many people have been killed, or otherwise victimized by criminals, simply because the cops were dealing with Brady-type “man with a gun” 911 calls elsewhere?

  4. That one line quoted by Joe explains it all, as far as I am concerned. There is no negotiating with the likes of the Brady Campaign, for ours and their world views are too disimilar. They want what they want, for reasons only they can fathom, individual rights or freedom to defend ourselves be damned.

  5. Great point Jeff. If openly carried they claim it’s “threatening” or “Menacing”, but carrying concealed its “hidden handguns”, and we are somehow sinister for hiding them away.

    I think we all know where they’re going…but they refuse to say it.

  6. Gee, Ken. This is a fun game. I’m gonna go ahead and jumb in. How many people have not been molested by criminals because they spotted someone open carrying nearby?

  7. “… the police often are called to the scene, creating a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. ”

    So it _wasn’t_ a “volatile or potentially dangerous” situation _until_ the police arrived. That’s quite an admission.

Comments are closed.