What is it holding?

The open carry issue...is it necessarily part of the Second Amendment or something else? If the intent of the Second Amendment is to guarantee widespread privately owned and held weapons suitable to deter a would be despot from ever grabbing hold of America, doesn't that exist right now? The open carry issue, whether is it or isn't allowed, does it really have anything to do with the private citizens of this country owning and possessing firearms capable of insuring our continued freedom?
My concern is if open carry takes neutral people and pushes them into the "anti-gun" camp, let's say some guy that has no opinion on private gun ownership but his wife and daughters comes home from shopping terrified over some motorcycle thugs wandering around with weapons slung over their shoulders, "exercising their rights"...that neutral guy could at that point say, sr##w it and vote in liberal political leadership that repeals the Second Amendment completely. Exactly what we don't want to happen.
Right now we can own all the firearms we want, shotguns, rifles, handguns, we can obtain conceal carry permits and have a firearm on our person 24 hours a day for personal protection. In rural areas you can have a rifle in a visible rack and no one gets upset. Do we really have to have an open carry? I think it would have a backlash effect.

Yes, yes we do.

I agree with you Dave.

In the late 1960's I was stationed in Arizona. In downtown Phoenix I saw a young dumbass walking down the street dressed all in black with 2 guns strapped around his waist. He had the typical movie gunfighter walk and was staring at everybody he met. It created a negative impression that has never left me.

So the issue before us is how do you guarantee that the population at large gets to keep and bare arms and yet take measures so that a handful of folks don't intimidate others or cause problems. Former chief Justice Burger owned a lot of firearms but argued the "collective" right theory and then jumped from that idea over to the Second Amendment only recognized a State being able to have a National Guard. I don't mean to go against a brilliant mind like Chief Justice Burger but I think he was plain wrong. If he was correct then the wording would have been "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" but that isn't what it says, it says "People".
Still, this collective idea, if differently interpreted might have value. If the whole idea behind the Second Amendment is that the general population has firearms privately owned and kept, for the express purpose of being used in a "well regulated militia" to insure no despot ever takes control of America, then all seems do-able.
I think that the National Guard alone is inadequate to insure against a potential despot. All the weapons are state owned and in a State Armory. They are easy to grab and only a handful of people control them. The weapons have to be dispersed through the general population. The whereabouts of these weapons cannot be available to any governmental body that could systematically grab them so any type of National Gun Registration ought to be Unconstitutional.
Is this armed citizenry then adequate to insure our freedom? I don't think so, it is an unorganized mob that couldn't do anything in time of emergency. It needs to be organized and disciplined so "Well Regulated", just as in Colonial times. It ought to come forth by order of a State's governor who appoints senior officers and the local folks can elect the junior officers. But for this militia to be a reality there has to be wide spread private firearm ownership.
So....I think anything that infringes upon that concept- that's what is Unconstitutional. Laws that would categorically deny EVERYONE from owning an arm suitable to defend the homeland, or laws preventing a State from having militia training, or any sort of national data base locating all arms in the nation- all that infringes upon the "People" being able to have their militia (under proper State control) and insuring no despot takes control of the Federal Government.
But all the rest of it, a background check on a gun purchase to insure someone isn't a convicted felon or has been judged mentally incompetent. Laws against brandishing weapons in public to the disturbance of others, checking your side arms with the town sheriff before riding into Dodge- none of those measures infringes on the general population having privately owned arms that can be taken to report for militia service to save our country from a would-be dictator.
There are obviously a lot of gray areas but it seems to me if today's gun owners keep pushing this idea they can wander around with weapons that upset a lot of other people- they are playing right into the hands of the legislators that would just as soon repeal the Second Amendment. Folks that abuse the Second Amendment right do more damage to the future of the Second Amendment than anything else I can imagine.

I disagree. You can't abuse a right. You can only abuse privileges. You can't abuse your right to breathe. You can't abuse your right to defend yourself. How I chose to discourage would be threats is my own business. If you feel threatend, I would say that is a fantastic deturrent to you assaulting me.

I hope the law passes so I can get a pimped out Kimber for the world to see.

What if...

CHL holders were allowed to also open carry, and as well all know, you drive a vehicle you have your driver's license. You get stopped by LE you must show your license. If a CHL holder was open carrying and LE sees CHL holder in public, quietly walks up and asks to see his/ her license. License is produced and everyone is on their way.

What's wrong with that?

Do not accept the premise of a license for a listed Constitutional right.
Unless you are breaking the law, an officer has no right to question you. I already must do this, I have a hunting license. And every time I see a LEO hunting, I must show my license. On a city street it would sound like an old movie, "Your papers please".

On the abuse a right, I'm still trying to think through things but the issue is whether a right has a limit. On free speech, If I verbally threaten to kill someone, I tell lies about someone- slandering their reputation, I sell my car and lie about how well it works, and then I commit perjury in court and send someone to the gas chamber; and, then I claim no one can do anything to me because I was exercising my right to free speech.
We live in a world today where if I talk about a "God-given" right- that upsets a lot of non-believing people but if the Declaration of Independence is considered with this idea that man is endowed by his creator with certain rights- then we get back to this "God Given" aspect. The whole thing is God may give you free will to kill someone but the free will doesn't involve a right to do it and that a "God-given" right would not extend to an ungodly application.
So...even if a person is an atheist this "God-given" aspect creates sort of a workable solution on how far rights can extend. So, on the free speech, you can speak your mind, criticize how you think the government is doing its job, etc. without fear of reprisal but if you do "ungodly" things like committing perjury then the free speech doesn't extend that far.
So, on the Second Amendment, how do we create a consensus where all the law abiding people can own and possess firearms but if a bad looking motor cycle group rides into town carrying a bunch of firearms and yelling obscenities- do we really want to say our little daughters and wives have to simply tolerate that? If we say they do, I think we will lose that argument. The general population will never agree and if it takes repealing the Second Amendment in its entirety to prevent such things, there are going to be huge segments of our population that will support it.
I think the right to own and keep firearms ought to be viewed as absolutely guaranteed under the Second Amendment. No infringement, but on the open carry, that is a gray area. If the whole idea behind the 2nd was to have a population with firearms to prevent any despot from grabbing control- as long as we all are armed- that intent has been accomplished. The open carry thing is more of a local privilege than right. So...if you live out in the country where folks need to keep a rifle handy, then in that locality they opt for open carry but if you are in a congested city where a lot of folks will get bent out of shape about open carry, then let them do as they please. I think years ago with the cowboys off the range having to check their weapons if they wanted to walk around Dodge City. The attitude was they were guests in the town and the townsfolk got the say on such matters. No one at the time seemed to question the
validity of the practice.
As I said, I myself am still trying to think out this issue. After giving the whole matter a lot of thought my view is the "well regulated" means a paramilitary group on their own hook isn't a militia. That "People" means the general population of private citizens, that the arms in question are sufficient to be used to save the country from despotism. The "armed citizenry" isn't the militia but rather the underlying requirement to create a militia. The "armed citizenry" comes forth with their privately owned and kept firearms to report to legitimate local authority in times of emergency to "repel invasion, put down insurrection, and see that the laws are faithfully executed"
As I said, my thoughts are still a work in process venture in trying to figure out a lot of the issues involved. Years ago I was black and white- I fully supported the "open carry and the heck with what others think" but I guess I'm mellowing out some what. Got to be careful on the mellowing, I don't want to over mellow

Keep thinking Dave. It is a lost art.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. U.S. Constitution, amendment 2.

To avoid legislative confusion, this should have been 2 complete sentences and not one compound sentence.

The Dodge City reference is/was good if you trusted Wyatt Earp and his buddies. A lot didn't and with good cause. To me, trusting the Dodge City constabulary was about like trusting Obama.

Remember the fictional story of Robin Hood who got into trouble for killing the Kings deer? Summed up, the King declared that all game belonged to the crown/government and thus no citizen needed a weapon. Sound familiar? That happened quite a bit in Europe. Nowadays, the deer belong to the State and we can only hunt "their" deer under the States conditions.

Historically, governments have been trying to control the ownership of weapons for a long time. Our forefathers were generally well versed in European law and its history. They feared that a despot would come along and try to control the ownership of weapons. Thus, many would not sign the new paperwork that made us a Nation without a Bill of Rights that modified and clarified the Constitution. And even then, some wanted a strong central government akin to the rights of royalty decision making like Europe. But England also had a Parliment that reigned in the King on his taxes and wars to collect more $.

Senator Orrin Hatch who chaired the Senate Committee studying this stuff in 1982 called it the right most valued by free men.

I've tried to study this stuff. The best book I have found re the history of gun and other weapon rights/control is "The Second Amendment Primer" by Les Adams. It's pretty cheap on Amazon and chronicles the history of weapon control by governments and despots. It's inexpensive and I would highly recommend it.

Regarding the reference to the obscene and armed biker gang. Every right requires good citizens to uphold it. And good citizens to uphold the society.
If they are yelling obscenities, remove yourself from the area much as I would if a gay pride parade was going on Main Street. But I can participate in a defense of marriage parade. If you feel threatened by the fact that the bikers are armed, even though the bikers are not actually committing a crime by pointing a firearm at someone, exercise YOUR rights. Call your friends and neighbors to stand on the front yard, rifle in hand, as they pass by. A street lined with armed citizens.

We do not have the right to never be never be uncomfortable with others' rights being legally used in ways we do not like. But we can use our rights to make them uncomfortable by demonstrating that the good is in the majority.

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2014/10/gresham_man_robbed_of_pistol_a.html

Gresham Police Department investigators are looking for a man who reportedly stole a pistol from its owner at gunpoint.

According to Gresham police, William Coleman III was talking to his cousin near 172nd and Glisan at about 2:10 a.m. on Saturday while openly carrying the gun he had purchased on Friday.

Coleman said a man, about 19- to 23-years-old, approached them, asking for a cigarette. Coleman said the man then inquired about Coleman's weapon, then pulled a pistol from his own waistband and said, "I like your gun. Give it to me." Coleman handed over his new handgun and the suspect left on foot.

Coleman described the man as 6-foot-1, clean cut with a small patch of facial hair on his chin and short black wavy hair. He was wearing grey sweatpants, a white t-shirt and flip-flops during the incident.

The stolen gun was a black Walther P22 semi-automatic designed to take 22-long ammunition.

Anyone with information on the case can call the Gresham Police Tips line at 503-618-2719.

Not to "answer my own answer", don't know if anyone is even following this thread anymore, but in thinking out my thinking- it still isn't right in the respect that the Fourth Amendment uses the word "People" when it clearly means that each and every individual person shall be free from unreasonable searches. So...for there to be any sort of continuity the "People" in the Second has to have the same meaning which would bounce it back to each and every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed upon. Still, the issue remains about convicted felons, mentally incompetents, etc.

Well, I must admit, this open carry is something new to me so I did some checking around. It seems like a lot of States already have it, most without any permit, etc. needed. A few say you can open carry but not while you are in your car. I think Scalia (sic?) on the Supreme Court pretty much said it is an automatic right. The thing about not being able to open carry in a car- that doesn't make sense to me because your car is sort of your "Home" to some extent. In several states with open carry a city or municipality can restrict open carry. Maybe that's the best answer, have the whole state open carry and then if a particular city wants a limitation, then they can scratch their own fleas however they want.
That motor cycle gang example, I was just thinking. The big issue of course is who gets to decide if someone is or isn't being a bother. Actually, I guess as long as everyone acts in a sober, sane manner, then shouldn't be an issue. As I said, my fear was a big public outcry and all sorts of new laws passed. If it's okay with everyone else its okay with me.

Regarding felons and mental patients. They would be considered wards of the State. By a lack of ability or willingness to control their actions, they are no longer free people.
Whether a felony should be a lifetime ban after time/probation/parole is complete is another debate.

OC'd all the time in AZ and NM. No one cares. Stop being so wound up about it.

Just carry concealed... Make it legal without a permit and stop all this youtube AR and AK chow slinging in public nonsense. This ain't the middle east. I support your right to carry like that, but it really ain't the classy thing to do.

Open carry confuses the situation in civilized society. How do Police know who to focus on? The "normals" showing off their metro , skinny pants and SBR or the nut job "acting" normal with rifle waiting to strike? Go ahead and open carry so you will be targeted and give me a chance while I'm concealed carry....food for thought: The dumber the turd thinks you are the more surprised they will be when you kill them.

Of course the data in the other 44 states that allow open carry doesn't support your rhetoric. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your opinion on how the rest of us should be allowed to exercise one of our most important rights.

Mr Deadrooster,

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I prefer to be non-descript. You can do as you wish, I don't care what you do until your actions begin affecting me. More often than not "open carry" is viewed by the common citizen as negative. That is all my post was meant for, my .02

I believe strongly in the 2A. As a LEO open carry will create a whole different situation for us as we interact with people daily. Not a big deal, but worthy of some discussion within the brethren at some point.

I open carried in Virginia all the time, hated the attention I got for it but it was better than not having a gun.

I am a fan of open carry only because when I carry my rifles/pistols to the truck I do not need a case. Also, I have the option to open carry if need be.

That said, I will conceal carry because I have my CHL.

Concealed carry, open carry, campus carry, unrestricted gun control, ball blah blah.... It comes down to public safety trumping individual rights. The Constitution gives me the right to the pursuit of happiness. It would make me happy if I didn't have to obey traffic laws and the IRS tax code, but we (well, most of us) agree that the common good (translate that to public safety and a stable, safe society) requires that we give up some individual freedoms so that we can maintain some basic law and order rather than live like wild animals.
Why do we require drivers licenses (and the training that goes with it) before we allow people to drive on public roadways? Public safety. We don't want untrained people doing electrical work, practicing medicine, installing lawn sprinklers for Pete's sake, bcause we want some assurance of reliability and safety in our society. Here in Texas we readily accepted the need for hunter education classes as a way to cut down on the number of gun "accidents." It worked. It just blows my mind that we don't see a need for some basic training requirements before allowing people handle guns, especially out in public. It's a public safety issue. I'm in my mid 50's, rural-raised, and a life long gun enthusiast, hunter and CHL'ed individual. But this whole push for complete unrestricted guns of every stripe to be owned and carried any and everywhere by any idiot with the means to purchase (or steal) one, no training or instruction required with no accountability is just insane to me. Good grief people.... And don't call me a LibTard. I make one very conservative mark at the top of the ballot. We've just about run plumb out of common sense......