Blue Byline

A cop's perspective of the news and South Sound matters

A question of rights

Post by Brian O'Neill on May 25, 2011 at 8:40 pm with 26 Comments »
May 28, 2011 10:51 am

The 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, was the topic of a fractious discussion in a previous blog. However, the comments were so passionate and thoughtful, especially regarding the open carry of firearms, that I considered it worth revisiting.

But first some background on the issue. The federal government allows for the open carry of a firearm, at least the way the Constitution is currently interpreted, meaning a person can carry a weapon visible to the public. On the state level, Washington and many other states allow individuals without a felony conviction to apply for a concealed weapons permit. These permit carriers blend into society in a way that allows them to exercise their rights, while not alarming someone who might be anxious at the sight of a gun on someone’s belt.

A reasonable person could argue that there are secluded and dangerous places in our country, such as the sparsely populated areas along our southern border, where a visible firearm could act as deterrence as well as protection. But where does that same argument take us when discussing open carry in crowded urban areas, where federal, state and local cops seem to trip over eachother?

One reader responded that “Philly police have advised open carry practioners that they will be put on the ground, even though open carry is legal…these JBT [jack-booted thugs?] tactics are unconstitutional and illegal on your part.” While carrying a firearm openly may be legal, it can also create unsafe situations in public places. While I’m not condoning blanket policies for handling any type of incident, surely the above example is no different than the virtual strip-down we endure at the airport, all in the name of public safety.

I won’t speak for the passionate folks who champion this issue, but a lot of their comments in the previous blog seemed to indicate a need to exercise this right for fear of losing it. I can see the logic behind that reasoning. But such logic could also be applied to the racist who exercises his right to free speech by standing on a street corner yelling racial epithets at passersby who don’t share his skin color.

We’re not living in a bubble. We live in a country where everyone has rights–rights that sometimes smack eachother head on. For example, is someone’s right to openly carry a firearm more important than, say, someone else’s pursuit of happiness if that person stands fearfully aside as the armed person passes?

It’s not a simple question, and it gets answered differently depending upon whom or where you ask.  I’ll leave you with a quote from a bank teller I spoke to just yesterday (keep in mind that a bank is private property and able to limit visitors’ actions). I asked her what she would do if a normal looking gentleman walked into her bank with a holstered gun at his waist. She looked at me as if I were stupid, and then she gave a simple answer.

“I’d call 911.”

Leave a comment Comments → 26
  1. The writer is grossly confused by comparing inspections of persons entering the sterile area at airports with the police seizing persons without reasonable suspicion merely for open carrying – the police violate the 4th amendment when doing this the same as they would for seizing a person merely for carrying a cell phone.

    This really is a basic point and it’s sad any American would conflate the two fact patterns.

    As for banks and other public places, people open carry there all the time in 43 states – rarely does anyone seem to nortice, and if they do, they either do not care or they ask friendly questions like “hey, can i do that? do i need a license?

    Fortunately, in most states no license is needed to open carry.

  2. smokey984 says:

    Brian Said:
    while not alarming someone who might be anxious at the sight of a gun on someone’s belt.
    I say: The only reason one may be alarmed is because the right is not exercised. People are always alarmed to something they are ignorant of…

    Brian said:
    A reasonable person could argue that there are secluded and dangerous places in our country.
    I say: I can argue there are secluded and dangerous places in every single community in this country. There are secluded and dangerous places in Tacoma, on the eastside, on hilltop, it could be secluded and dangerous at a bus stop tomorrow morning…

    Brian said:
    But where does that same argument take us when discussing open carry in crowded urban areas, where federal, state and local cops seem to trip over eachother?
    I say: Thats why its the first responders JOB to know the current laws? I mean after all, if i were to get stopped or arrested and claimed ignorance to a particular law i was accused of violating could i use ignorance of that law for self defense in a trial? Know your job regardless of the agency you work for…

    Brian said:
    While carrying a firearm openly may be legal, it can also create unsafe situations in public places.
    I say: And what unsafe condition would it create? Any more unsafe than a peace officer who carries his? Any more unsafe then driving while impaired and running a red light at a crowded intersection? any more unsafe than kicking in a door in the name of exigent circumstances as its perceived evidence of a victimless crime is being destroyed?

    Brian said:
    But such logic could also be applied to the racist who exercises his right to free speech by standing on a street corner yelling racial epithets at passersby who don’t share his skin color.
    I say: I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison Brian. The racist who exercises his free speech on the street corner is inciting violence with the words he chooses to speak. I don’t think the open carry law abiding citizen is inciting violence with that practice.

    Brian said:
    We’re not living in a bubble. We live in a country where everyone has rights–rights that sometimes smack each-other head on. For example, is someone’s right to openly carry a firearm more important than, say, someone Else’s pursuit of happiness if that person stands fearfully aside as the armed person passes?
    I say: Let them fear it, it will guide his behavior. Folks act kindly to one another when one has to back up his actions with his life. And if dozens of citizens open carry past you everyday sooner or later you will start to appreciate the fact their are citizens of our society who are willing to defend/deter crime besides the once a month reminder of your local peace officer passing by.

    Brian said:
    I’ll leave you with a quote from a bank teller I spoke to just yesterday (keep in mind that a bank is private property and able to limit visitors’ actions). I asked her what she would do if a normal looking gentleman walked into her bank with a holstered gun at his waist. She looked at me as if I were stupid, and then she gave a simple answer. “I’d call 911.”
    I say: and i would return to that same bank every single day to withdraw 1 dollar just for her to call 911. Sooner or later she would see/recognize i am a friendly law abiding citizen who cares for the welfare of your society. My own little version of social training!

    Good piece Brian, long overdue.

  3. LibertyBell says:

    A Bill of Rights? >SUPREMACY< Above the power of the Constitution and Seperate? WHY?

    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
    – Hitler, April 11 1942

    Evidently under Brians theory, the leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto, with many in dissent (the intellegent ones) assisted the Nazi Party, in removing the guns from the ghetto, just ask anyone how that worked out for public safety, shown best a couple years later, with the rounding up of the chosen one's, looking for the security of Brians so called populated areas, made sparse

    Who actually poped that "unalienable" bubble, Brian?

    IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

    The UNANIMOUS Declaration

    "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary…We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain "UNALIENABLE" rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are institutes among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…And with the suppoer of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

    Evidently Brian;
    "Such logic, as in taking away many citizens guns, is on review from the JIm Crow day's of the Democratic Party.

    Are you sure you have ever lived in America?

    District of Columbia v. Heller, with the United States Supreme Court overturning your favorite Jim Crow rule book?

    Jim Crow on display, a democratic party speciality on display right here in the 4th Corner, where the Dunce Cap is Supreme.

    If a Bank get's robbed of its property, the police come a running?

    If an individual get's robbed of their property, the police head to the donut shoppe, and won't even take a crime report?

    Life Liberty and Property, and for the confused ones, the Ku Klux Act of 1871, civil law for the criminal element employed at your local police station.

  4. LibertyBell says:

    Common Sense
    By Thomas Paine

    Introduction
    PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

    As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either.

    In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly, will cease of themselves, unless too much pains is bestowed upon their conversion.

    The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is

    THE AUTHOR.

    Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.

  5. LibertyBell says:

    Some people who attended our law enforcement academy, were taught about Washingtons Supreme Democratic Party.

    Just go ask Christine Greguoir, about her defense team and the Attorney General’s Office specializing in defense of her favorite party members.

    Of course after she changed her name to Chris , no-one will remember her party’s control at the AG’s Office?

    All one needs is a State Trooper Klansman, shown best upholding the party doctrine’s, in the Tacoma Klassic of Klansman Brame Chief of the local partys division, with a gun, badge, and the Queens Crown too!

    http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/kkk_seattle.htm

  6. Open carry by officers scares me(kidding). Does this mean we should adopt Englands version of police officers, and not allow them to be armed? Your logic fails at its outset Brian…..

    Open carry is a legal right. If it scares somebody, they need to grow up. We are becoming a coddled, entitlement driven society at all aspects.

  7. LibertyBell says:

    TMell,

    Of course after the whole body of the Tacoma Police Department assisted Chief Brame in Murder, why they have a Gun is another great question for the confused in our local Pierce Kounty Klansman Klub.

    Raising the Klan’s Bar, Sheriff Janovich, the Criminal Element with a gun?

    “SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

    The “armed body of men” committing murder and Tacoma’s Finest with the Crystal Brame Murder?

    Go get the Queen and ask Christine, why her Governors Duties relating to the criminal element in your local police department is given a gun, totally illegal in every state of the Union, except for the one with her favorite defense attorney, that US Attorney for the District of Western Washington’s Democratic Klansmen’s Association.

    And Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, AWOL as Usual!

    Oh yes all the queens horses, and all the queens men, couldent put Crystal Togather again?

    Or was it that U.S. Attorney in Seattle, Durkin Donuts, the Queens Favorite, keeping the donut investigations on track, shown best in Lakewood!

  8. BlaineCGarver says:

    Brian, thanks for the revisiting of this issue. I don’t open carry that much in a urban setting, but not for the reasons you state. I’m just not interested in being jumped by anyone that wants my piece. My little .38 AirWeight slips into a vest pocket and I doubt anyone can tell it’s there.I DO meet and hang out with those that open carry, and have never seen anyone raise an eyebrow. BTW, Brian, I know for a fact that all the local PDs have received training bulletins about the legal status of those that open carry, and that you have been couneled in how to deal with them. I fear an emotional LEO almost more than a straight forward crook, vis-a-vis my well being and civil rights. I hope the law doesn’t change, but until it does, we should not be hassled as a result of emotions and feelings, but rather by the letter of the law. Thanks again, Sir.

  9. Gandalf says:

    Funny that Brian brings up the 1st amendment “But such logic could also be applied to the racist who exercises his right to free speech by standing on a street corner yelling racial epithets at passersby who don’t share his skin color.”

    Yes, such logic can and does apply. I’m sorry, but being offended doesn’t give a person the right to deny a person’s rights. The same with the 2nd amendment, or any other portion of the bill of rights. Personally, I’m offended when someone decides to burn the American flag. But it’s his/her right to do so.

    Our society as a whole isn’t “polite”. The people go about their day offending others constantly, by the way they dress, or the way they talk, or the opinions they voice, or the music they listen to, or the amount of perfume they wear. Simply talking loudly on a cell phone can bother others. We don’t live in a bubble or a library. It’s a matter of tolerance on ALL sides. It’s one of this country’s greatest strengths. I don’t have to conform to someone’s ideal lifestyle. Above all else, I shouldn’t have a basic right taken away simply because of fear.

    Oh, and in the declaration of independence, the line “pursuit of happiness” doesn’t refer to the right of someone walking around being happy. It has a very significant and deeper meaning, basically referring to freedom of opportunity. It’s also not a “right” it’s a goal. You are not guaranteed happiness, only given the opportunity to pursue it.

  10. rivitman says:

    Concealed carry, no permit required would probably end this debate. The utter dumbness of requiring people of sound mind and no criminal history or other prohibition to undergo licensing hassles and costs to exercise a constitutionally protected right is self evident. Open warfare has not broken out in states that allow this.

    While I am a supporter of open carry, I would think our interests better served, and time better utilized by putting a stop to the imposition and cost of CCW permitting.

    So I would ask the officer, what is a larger danger, the gun you can see, or the gun you cannot see, when said piece is carried by a law abiding citizen?

    Trick question, to be sure. But the answer is crucial.

    Is the bank teller going to call 911 if she notices a suspicious bulge on the right hip?

    How about a cap and sunglasses?

    Is there a right to enter a bank wearing a ski mask in cold weather, or is that just a stupid thing to do?

    In Washington, I can open carry. Except in my car. But licenced, I can carry concealed in my car…Hmmmmmm

    Oh my, the grey areas…..

    But there is no trick , no grey area involved for the criminal use, or posesesion of a firearm. The criminal simply does what comes naturally: Commit another crime.

  11. gogoDawgs says:

    Brian,

    I am one of those guys. I open carry. I do so in the bank, in downtown Seattle and Tacoma. I have open carried at our state capital. I have open carried at the Tacoma Freedom Fest, Seattle Center, private property, public property, city hall, etc… I do so to stop the serial misinformation that law enforcement officers are somehow a privileged and special segment of our Republic.

    Your point of view is definitely skewed. It is unfortunate. I am personally inviting you to a regularly scheduled coffee at the Federal Way Starbucks the 2nd Saturday of each month at The Crossings on 348th at 10am. I am personally inviting you to read the discussions at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?131-Washington

    And if you don’t believe I walk the walk, look at this picture of the Attorney General, myself and a buddy in downtown Seattle while open carry. http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af21/gogodawgs/IMG_0592.jpg

    By the way, I am an activist, but not an extremist…
    I am also a former PTA founder and President, a state High School Basketball Referee, a father of two teenage daughters, a businessman, a Chamber of Commerce member….

  12. Brian O'Neill says:

    Good questions, rivitman. I’ll try out some responses, but keep in mind I’m an opinionated cop, not a constitutional lawyer.

    If someone has an intent to use a firearm against me, I would rather that threat be out in the open. If someone with an open carry reaches for their weapon, at least I’ll have that bit of warning.

    Absent any other indicators, I think you and I both know that the bank teller isn’t going to push the button with over a bulge on the hip.

    Cap and sunglasses? Probably, yes. The rules are posted on the exterior of most banks.

    Ski mask? Bad idea in a bank. Just because you haven’t committed a crime doesn’t mean you won’t be proned out, patted down and possibly ejected from the bank.

    Lastly, you make a good point. My experience and anecdotal evidence would agree that criminals carry concealed, and that open carry individuals are not likely to be criminals. But that clearly leaves out a large portion of individuals who shoot and kill people with guns–crazy people. Just ask Gabby Giffords.

  13. Brian O'Neill says:

    I don’t recall all those unseen and hidden meanings regarding the pursuit of happiness in the U.S. Constitution, Gandalf. Don’t fall into the trap of calling others’ interpretations into question and then imposing your own.

  14. Brian O'Neill says:

    You’re welcome, Blaine. I also am concerned about cops who tarnish the badge, but to be honest I’m more concerned with criminals, though I have yet to meet a straightforward one.

  15. Brian O'Neill says:

    LB- you reference people like they are soulless pieces on a chess board, whose only course of action is to play out the role to which they were made. To you all cops are donut-eaters, politicians are corrupt, and victims like Crystal Brame are just names you can throw like darts on a board. Put the newspapers down and engage with people, buddy. Expand your world.

  16. rivitman says:

    Well, the key question was, quoting myself:

    “So I would ask the officer, what is a larger danger, the gun you can see, or the gun you cannot see, when said piece is carried by a law abiding citizen?”

    The correct answer evaded you.

    The correct answer is ‘niether is a danger’.

    Your answer reveals a probably unintentional bias. You answered based on your internally percieved threat level, not reality. Your switch between condition yellow and condition red is an artifact of faulty logic.

    Your answer is a conditioned response no doubt brought on by your training, the fact that you are compelled by your job to go into harm’s way, and perhaps the root cause of why open carry seems to upset some, the psychological conditioning brought about by forty plus years of anti-gun hysteria on the part of gun control advocates and the media.

    Banks now fear oakleys and basball caps. Think about it.

  17. ARADCOM says:

    Brian said, “The federal government allows for the open carry of a firearm, at least the way the Constitution is currently interpreted, meaning a person can carry a weapon visible to the public. On the state level, Washington and many other states allow individuals without a felony conviction to apply for a concealed weapons permit.”

    I’m surprised you didn’t state that Washington allows Open Carry. The way you word it implies that WA only allows concealed carry.

    As for that bank teller, she needs a little training. I OC at the two banks and credit union that I do business with and have never had an issue.

  18. gogoDawgs says:

    Brian O’Neill says:
    MAY 26, 2011 AT 6:56 PM
    I don’t recall all those unseen and hidden meanings regarding the pursuit of happiness in the U.S. Constitution, Gandalf. Don’t fall into the trap of calling others’ interpretations into question and then imposing your own.

    Brian,

    The above statement is absolutely, 100% false! Either it is a typo or you are ignorant of American History, culture and law. The ‘pursuit of happiness’ DOES NOT exist in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Yet the quote you cite above has no function in law. The ‘pursuit of happiness’ is part of the Declaration of Independence, which is not part of U.S. law. Please get your facts correct before an attempt to discredit another’s opinion.

  19. Rivitman-actually, if you open carry, you can have it in your car, it just can’t be loaded. So, yeah that will scare the populace(and weak willed officers who are frightened by a citizen having a weapon) when you have to unholster your weapon, pull the clip, and cycle your chambered round out…..weird laws we have.

    I don’t have an issue with the extra steps for the concealed weapons permit. It’s really an easy process, and not very expensive either.

    LB-I know David Brame’s first wife very well. She is married to one of my best friends currently. He always was an abusive piece of work, his mental evaluation was “do not hire” when he was hired. He should have never been a law enforcement officer, let alone a chief. He is just one of the poster children for accountability within law enforcement. The guilds, and police officers like Brian need to wake up and realize what all the scum police officers are doing to the reputations of the good, law abiding, honest, ethical public servants that are probably the majority of police officers. But continuing to defend the indefensible only tarnishes the publics trust further. Like Brians blog about the TPD Chief just a couple weeks ago-just further damages the publics trust.

  20. xxxJakkxxx says:

    Why would you limit the usage of ones rights just because someone else has an issue with you using said right? Aren’t these our Inalienable Rights? I do believe that the second amendment even says “Shall not be infringed”. Why would you limit yourself in exercising your rights just because someone else does not value your them as much as you do?

    Maybe it is because I feel so passionately about one specific right that I value the rest of them just as much. I would never ask anyone to give up any of their rights or limit how they practice them. I would not say that a racist or police officer cannot say or type something just because I disagree with it. I would not ask that someone give up their religious beliefs because I don’t believe in that particular god or deity. I would also not ask someone to stop carrying their firearm in the way that they feel comfortable just because I think it’s less tactically sound.

    Why is it a given that I can practice any religion and say anything that I want while I am restricted to carry a firearm in only specific ways that some politician says are okay? The first amendment, though you may not want to admit it, is a much more dangerous thing than the second amendment has ever been. Speech and religion have cause more pain, suffering and death than guns have, and will, ever cause. Anything that you say could cause someone to feel immense anger or pain. Saying a prayer or showing a symbol can cause hatred and fear.

    So why is it that you’re only worried about these feelings when they’re caused by the sight and thought of firearms? You seem to not be moved by the anger, sorrow and fear that you’re causing those who cherish the constitution, though you don’t skip a beat to come to the aid and comfort those that want to destroy it one right at a time.

    I simply cannot believe that someone who practices one of their constitutional rights on such a regular basis would even consider destroying or limiting another’s practice of their own constitutional rights.

    I have a challenge for you if you’d like to see what you’re trying to cause. I challenge you to write your article for a week while limiting the content to ONLY content that you know will have no negative effect on anyone. You must practice your right to free speech while taking into consideration everyone’s feelings and not touching on anything that would go against their beliefs. Nothing that would cause anyone to become angry, nothing that would cause them to be fearful, nothing that would cause them to feel hatred, nothing that would make them feel sorrow.

  21. rivitman says:

    TMell, with no criminal history, not being under charge or indictment, and having no other prohibitions, why should I pay a fee, get printed, pay for parking, and spend time at the CC building to exercise a right, particularly when there is clearly no such compelling state interest? This is not a priveledge granted by the state like a driver’s licence.

    Particularly when the first fiftteen bucks goes into the state general fund (taxing rights isn’t cricket),

    If I open carry. I’m legal right? All the same prohohibitions would aply to me posessing a firearm, so I’m still armed either way. So are the criminals. They seem as ok to risk a weapon enhanced sentence as we are to confine them.

    Deterrent value? No way to quantify it although I support enhanced sentencing for weapons related crimes. I would have taken it a notch further and eliminated first time offender waivers for “hard time for armed crime” provisions.

    Meanwhile, I see no particular utility in any licencing scheme for legal concealed pistol carriers. Just a potential for more taxation, and or legislative mischief.

  22. Gandalf says:

    Brian, you may not “like” the response for what “pursuit of happiness” means in the declaration of independence, but I was stating what Thomas Jefferson was thinking when he wrote it.
    ————————————————————————————————-

    “Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England’s Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

    Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain “inalienable” natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are “life, liberty, and property.”

    Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

    Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

    By “property,” Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one’s self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, “pursuit of happiness,” which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want. ”
    ————————————————————————————
    Most in depth discussion can be found here:

    http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

    So, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. In this day and age of out of control entitlement mindset, this thinking is too commonplace, unfortunately. The bill of rights, and the responsibility of government therein, isn’t forty acres and a mule, or a chicken in every pot.

  23. Rivit-I agree with you…..if it were me making the laws, I’d be right there with you. It’s really just a Big Brother and taxation issue, under the guise of public safety. Cops also know you have a concealed weapons permit when they pull you over for speeding or whatever, and sometimes approach your vehicle in a different manner.

  24. hermannr says:

    Brian!

    You are a LEO in the State Of Washington, is that not correct? And you do not know the Washington state constitutional provisions in Article 1 section 7 and Article 1 section 24. If you have forgotten them:

    Artical1 section 7: No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

    BTW: Being a LEO is not “The authorty of Law”…the written law is the Authority, you are only commisioned to uphold the laws that are written, not what you would like to be written.

    Artical 1 section 24: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.

    You will notice, in the Washington state constitution, there is no question as to whether the right to “bear arms” is an “individual” right, or not,,,is there?

    You know, Rosa Parks made a lot of people “uncomfortable” when she choose to sit in the front of the bus…but she wasn’t harming anyone. When I strap on my Colt (or my CZ) and walk out the door, I am harming no-one, and just like rosa Parks, I am choosing to do what I have a right to do, just as Rosa Parks did back in the 60′s.

    As a LEO you are required to abide the Law too. As a LEO you have no more or less “rights” than any other citizen in this great state. That you carry everyday, only means your job requires you to, it does not give you the “right” to…the “right” already existed.

  25. Brian O'Neill says:

    Ladies and Gents–Please do not mistake an opinion, that open carry may not be appropriate in every location at every moment, as an outright denouncement of the practice or of the 2nd Amendment in general. That would be inaccurate. We owe it to each other to be reasonable and considerate about eachothers’ rights. In a large, populated and diverse nation such as ours it is vitally important that we use good judgment about when we decide to exercise those rights.

    This was an educational and insightful exchange and I appreciate all the comments. As I said before, the passion and conviction for the advocates of open carry was worthy of further discussion on the topic.

    Brian O’Neill

  26. I close carry pepper spray in my pocket. I’m not proud but I don’t want
    to destroy a life by one misplaced shot.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0