Tuesday, December 02, 2014

Ferguson: Where Open Carry Leads


Sign during the chaos of Katrina.

One of the primary purposes of the second amendment is the ability to form militias to enforce public order.   The formation of informal militias during times of disorder, such as during natural disasters and riots is a completely natural and expected act.   Productive people have invested their lives in their property; when that property and their lives are threatened, neighbors band together to protect themselves and each other.

You do not see riots and looting in the suburbs and small towns, because there is no incentive to destroy what has been painstakingly built.   In the urban cores, riots occur because a large class of property-less people have been created who have little to lose, and the possibility of gaining a little loot and excitement offers a little escape from an existence without responsibility.

In Ferguson, responsible people, black and white, gathered together to protect private property.   They could do so in part, because of the second amendment and the restoration of open carry in Missouri.   Only a few weeks ago, the Missouri legislature overrode Governor Nixon's veto, restoring the ability to openly carry arms for people who had a concealed carry permit.

It is hard to deter lawless looters if you cannot display arms; it can present legal difficulties if every property owner has to be constantly telling police that they have given permission for their friends and allies to bear arms on their private property.  Those who push for more and more concentrated state power do not want people to be able to defend their property, because they are not as dependent on the state.  They are not as easily cowed into subservience and obedience.


   Machiavelli summed up the mindset rather well:

 There is no comparison whatever between an armed and disarmed man; it is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe.... - Niccol├│ Machiavelli, The Prince. 1537.
It has been reported that federal agents in Ferguson have ordered some Oathkeepers to stop protecting property, under the pretext that they needed a license to do so.   No such license is needed for volunteers who are not being paid.   Stewart Rhodes, President of Oathkeepers was quoted as saying:
“They want to create a false paradigm… They are presenting a false choice between lawlessness, looting, arson, assault, murder on the one side, unrestrained, or a hyper-militarized police state on the other,” Rhodes said. “They are failing to do the intelligent thing and protect businesses without trampling on rights.”
Broom-handles and baseball bats are not effective tools for dealing with a mob of looters.  They have sticks and stones and Molotov cocktails to deal with that sort of defense.   It is much easier to destroy than to create.  But firearms are another matter.  Looters are likely to look for easier targets when they might lose their life, when a shot from the crowd can be answered with a volley in return, and when the open carry of arms by known felons is still illegal.

Fortunately, the grand jury in Ferguson did its duty.  They did not buckle to the intense pressure to indict, no matter what the facts.  The law abiding citizens of Ferguson knew that they were likely to prevail if they, like Officer Wilson, were required to use deadly force in defense of themselves.

Ultimately, this is a major reason why disarmists hate open carry.  If you cannot open carry, you cannot form informal militias to protect your property and livelihood.   You become dependent on the state for local security as well as national security; and if the state withdraws protection from you, as happened in the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, or in Ferguson more recently, you are forced to suffer.



It would be against the law for people to gather together to protect themselves in New York City as they have in Ferguson.  Open carry is illegal there.  It would be illegal in Chicago as well.   Open carry is illegal there.  People in New York City are almost entirely disarmed through decades of strict implementation of the Sullivan act, a statute that was put into place to protect organized crime.   Chicago continues to fight the courts on allowing its residents to be armed.   Unarmed people are more dependent.  That is how many politicians prefer it.

Definition of  disarmist 

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Update: St. Louis stops harrassing Oathkeepers.

5 comments:

Wireless.Phil said...

This is confusing to me?

""restoring the ability to openly carry arms for people who had a concealed carry permit.""

Either you carry concealed or open.
If you have the concealed permit or license, why would you carry open?

Wireless.Phil said...

Cleveland and other cities already had it for awhile, but they want to start a toy gun buyback in Cleveland.

If they were serious, they'd go to the store and buh them, I'm sure the stores wouod be happy.

Dean Weingarten said...

There are advantages and disadvantages to both open and concealed carry. Being able to carry both ways legally allows the option.

Here is one example. Suppose the temperature is 110 and you do not want the firearm riding next to your sweaty body. Carrying openly in such a situation can be much more practical and comfortable.

Anonymous said...

Open carry is an obvious deterrent to looters who are willing to do you or your property harm. Would looters risk entering a building with an obvious show of force? That's the advantage of open carry. Concealed carry prevents the open show of arms, and looters may risk entering and doing harm.

The quote you are questioning says that people who have a concealed carry permit would also have the ability to open carry, thus making it obvious that they are armed.

Anonymous said...

ON 12/3/14, An anonymous poster said:
"Open carry is an obvious deterrent to looters who are willing to do you or your property harm. Would looters risk entering a building with an obvious show of force? That's the advantage of open carry. Concealed carry prevents the open show of arms, and looters may risk entering and doing harm.

The quote you are questioning says that people who have a concealed carry permit would also have the ability to open carry, thus making it obvious that they are armed."

I agree. There are times when concealed carry is preferred and even recommended. You don't want to be a target under most circumstances. However, in unusual situations, it may be better to openly carry as part of a group to show that the group is able to retaliate with serious and deadly firepower if facing an attack on their security. I see it as a whole lot better than people walking around with firearms in their hands when people are rioting. I see it better to have a show of force with a group in possession of holstered pistols or a rifles on shoulders than to have the same people having to conceal the weapons in a crisis and violent rioters charging at them because they don't know the people they are approaching are armed.

People with concealed pistol licenses or permits are normally law abiding people who have no history of violence or criminal activity. Otherwise, they would not be granted their license/permit. They usually have a higher level of training that most people in the handling and maintenance of firearms, especially those they own. It seems reasonable that they be allowed to open carry when the need arises.

From Fort Worth, TX
(Hoping for Open Carry -with a CHL- in 2015!)