Friday, February 11, 2011

manners matter

Michigan Open Carry needs to be reminded of that old saying about how 'you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar'. Determined to demonstrate that libraries are public authorities created by the city and county, and therefore don't have the ability make policies that override state law, a few of their buffoons members have been visiting area libraries and exercising their right to carry openly and, apparently, scare the crap out of unsuspecting librarians. I've read a number of accounts about their activism and it seems to involve flashing their holsters at library workers and setting up camp in the teen reading area while carrying a shotgun.

As a gun owner, there are few better feelings than walking down the street in a freedom-friendly town with a pistol on your hip.
However, there are rules for open carry... mostly because I'm making them up right now. (& feel free to add yours in the comment section)

1.) Be exceedingly polite - use words like "please," thank you," and "ma'am."
2.) Smile a lot.
3.) Do not touch your gun. Ever.*
4.) Do not call attention to your gun. Ever.
5.) Do not talk about your gun unless someone asks. Ever.

The point here is to act as if carrying a gun is as normal as wearing a wristwatch. Doing anything else will destroy the potential joys of open carry for the rest of us.

Because, seriously? You come into my library carrying a shotgun and acting like an asshole, I'm going to call the cops on you too.

*unless you need it, obviously.

111 comments:

Old NFO said...

Excellent points Breda- we ARE a polite society when armed...

jdege said...

The goal, when open-carrying as a form of political protest, is to make the guy who calls the cops look like the asshole.

That's hard to do if you start off acting like an asshole, yourself.

Blue Steel said...

Agree with your post 100%.

I would also add 6.) Do not talk TO your gun while demonstrating open carry. That stuff is best left in the privacy of your own home! ;-)

RichB said...

I like your rules, they are the rules I have always followed while OCing in CT.

I guess I had always assumed these were the 'unspoken' rules of OC, but it never hurts to add a little visibility to them.

I don't really understand your opposition to the Michigan OCers however. Perhaps a shotgun is a bit much, but they followed the law and I don't see anything they did that was anything but polite (maybe I am not seeing the full story?).

Am I missing something? Is it somehow impolite to OC just because it is a library?

Fred said...

It's all summed up by my personal favorite bit of advice; "don't be a dick." It's amazing how far a little politeness can get you.

RichB said...

As I said previously, I like the rules, but I would add these two:

6) Always know your rights and the laws.
7) Stand your ground when you are right.

Mike W. said...

I have a bit of a problem with #2. I'm just not much of a smiler.

You'd think these would be obvious things, but then some folks just don't know how to act. Unfortunately sometimes those folks are on our side.

"Don't be an asshole" is a great rule to live by, and yet on any issue there are bound to be activists who act like assholes and make the rest of us look bad.

You said you read other accounts of their behavior. Could you post links to those accounts as well?

Breda said...

MikeW, I added a second link. Also? You should smile more. I'll get photos.

Stan said...

The man with the shotgun and the MOC members were unrelated and different situations. The man with the shotgun left after speaking with police. The article does a bad job of clarifying this though.

The MOC members refused to leave because the library had no legal right to ask them to do so. Michigan state law prohibits local governments from making any firearms laws stricter than the states with the exception of regulating discharge within city limits.

RichB said...

The article says: "one man flashed a holster in a worker's face"

What does that even mean? How can you judge these guys on such ridiculous reporting? Did the man have a holster in his hand that he showed her? Was her face near his hip at some point? WTF?

And to take the word of a library worker who 'had to be consoled' at the mere sight of law abiding people carrying firearms in a lawful manner seems a bit biased.

I don't know Breda, I can't really side with your admonishment of these guys. I am seeing nothing but typical anti-OC B.S. in these articles (OMG everyone will give birth to a kitten right there if they see your gun!), and I am seeing very little that resembles real facts.

I am willing to give MOC the benefit of the doubt here. I have had some pretty ridiculous things said about at least one incident where I OCed as well, and I can understand the fight these guys are making.

Kristopher said...

One woman in the Free State movement in NH had an interesting twist on OC ... she was also doing it topless.

It wasn't considered indecent exposure in NH.

The local police seemed more interested in chatting her up than freaking out about the .45 on her hip.

Andrew said...

Breda, your rules are pretty good. I open carry a lot, and I have some additional rules:

1. Dress at least a little better than average. You're representing, right or wrong, all gun owners. Make a good impression.

2. Wear a retention holster and stay very aware. Concealed is concealed, but when you're OCing, a gun grab (by a thug, a cop, or an idiot security guard, in ascending order of likelihood) becomes a real issue to consider.

3. Tip well, if you're in a tipping joint.

4. If at all possible, bring expectation-confounding companions. Alone, I'm a man with a gun. Accompanied, I'm a doting daddy to adorable elementary-school kids, and I just happen to be carrying.

5. If you're involved in political, competitive or other gun groups, have a handful of cards or brochures in your pocket.

6. If you want to be really sharp, carry a copy of the law or opinion that shows that your carry is legal. Some people need the reassurance.

7. Smile. Again. A lot. It matters.

8. If you want to wear camo, scowl a lot, be rude, unshaven, messy, cheap, or angry, please conceal. Not everyone is cut out to be a diplomat.

Mike W. said...

Kristopher does have a valid point. There's a gun in that picture? Funny, I didn't notice. ;)

Personally I think it'd be kinda funny to see folks OC'ing dressed in something ridiculous, like Amish outfits or bright kneehigh socks and a cape. Takes the focus off the gun.

These guys are free to do what they want, but scaring the shit out of people is ultimately going to be counterproductive.

Technically I could open carry my AR-15 into a daycare or a pediatricians office. Would I? Hell no. Using common sense and commmon decency before you act can go a long way towards furthering whatever cause you seek to promote.

DM said...

"You come into my library carrying a shotgun and acting like an asshole, I'm going to call the cops on you too."

#1 If it's a municipal library in Michigan, it's not *your* library.

#2 There's no credible info that anyone was acting an a--hole. Except the library staff and security.

#3 Calling the cops on people behaving lawfully is a waste of law enforcement resources. Congratulations! You've just delayed police response to a REAL crime in progress. The victim can't thank you enough! Because the victim can't thank you at all. She's dead. Because you delayed the cops with your bullsh-t call.

Breda said...

Wow, you rabid OCers sure are a surly bunch. Thanks for proving my point for me. ;)

Gator said...

Topless with a .45? Now that's open carry.

DM said...

I'm quite a pleasant guy. But, yes, surly toward fudds.

founders said...

Ok, here's my contribution

6.) The Breda Fallacy promulgated open carry rules are null and void because nobody elected you, appointed you, anointed you, delegated to you or otherwise declared you the arbiter of open carry rules. :-)

I have to say that while I don't prefer to be in on uncomfortable confrontational encounters, this particular issue appears to have been instigated by a government tyrant with a Napoleon complex. Kudos to MOC. We really can't abide divisions like this in the RKBA community, the antis FEED on this kind of dissent.

I'm amazed at how we as a community are willing to draw the line on "inappropriate" so far into our community and ignore the blatantly illegal behavior of the government. I'm not saying to be impolite on purpose, nor am I advocating irresponsible gun owner behavior. However, when the government steps out of line and tries to take freedom away from one segment of our community we should stand behind them or shoulder to shoulder with them so that maybe next time when Feinstein or her ilk come for the '03 Springfield or similar arms, maybe they'll stand with you.

RichB said...

I think I have been nothing but polite with you Breda.

Careful, you are treading on japete territory here by trying to discredit people just because they don't agree with you.

Breda said...

LOL, and perhaps egotistical, too! I wasn't talking about you, RichB.

Jay G said...

So Breda is a "fudd" because she would call the police on someone carrying a shotgun in the library?

Yeah, you wonder why we don't all flock to their cause?

I mean, you're not exactly winning hearts and minds here.

Seriously, take a look at what you're saying and who you're saying it to. I don't know you from Adam, but I do know Breda.

The only thing you're doing in calling her a Fudd - which is pretty much universally understood in the gun culture as someone who does not support gun rights - is making yourself look like you have no clue what you're talking about.

We can agree without being disagreeable.

And you're really making Breda's point for her.

89b4778e-3626-11e0-acc7-000bcdcb5194 said...

I am very surprised that gun owners read the liberal news stories and believe what they read.

Are you aware that the teenager that had the shotgun in the teen section of the library is not old enough to buy a handgun from a dealer or allwoed to have a CC permit because of his age?

Are you aware that it is single digit tempatures here in Michigan, and when a person goes indoors and removes their coat, some antigun people consider that flashing a holster?

Talking about manors, why don't we look into the stories we are bad mouthing people about, before we stick our foot in our mouths as the blogger has done in this case?

RichB said...

Breda, you addressed 'rabid OCers'. I fit that bill as much as anyone else who has posted here.

But I am 'egotistical' when you fail to accurately address the people to whom you are referring.

Calling it 'your library' and saying you would call the police on law abiding people when you know the law is such that the police won't do anything but wait outside sounds far more egotistical to me.

Mike W. said...

Careful, you are treading on japete territory here by trying to discredit people just because they don't agree with you.

Really? I think telling people that they should be mindful of how they act in public (for the sake of the cause) is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

Like it or not, when I open carry my conduct and how I react to the conduct of others is representative of the entire gun owning community. My actions can have consequences for others. As such, it is imperative that I be as polite and non-confronational as possible.

We're not going to win folks over by scaring them and acting rude or tough. I'm not saying don't exercise your rights, but be mindful and temper your approach. It does us no good to alienate those who could turn into supporters.

Personally I think there are better ways to get library policy changed than holding what amounts to OC protests there. Sometimes all it takes are a couple of letters & e-mails.

Breda said...

But, RichB, a previous commenter just stated that the person carrying the shotgun was not law-abiding. Are you still going to defend that now?

Also? Having all these brand new readers who don't know a damn thing about me because they have never read my blog before now making snarky comments sure is fun! thanks for all the blog hits, guys!

SayUncle said...

While they're at it, maybe they can get some gay guys who OC to go to the library and do a kiss-in.

Stan said...

Actually the previous commenter did not say the long arm OC'er was breaking the law, he just said he was too young to purchase a pistol from a FFL or to get CPL, which leaves his only way of carrying a firearm to be either to OC a pistol or to OC a long arm, and a long arm is easier to get when you are under 21.

Also the humor of calling Breda a fudd after she posts a picture of herself OC is interesting.

I think this was a combination of papers ratcheting up the PSH level and the guys from MOC not being willing to go along to get along as regards to their rights.

I think Andrew had some good points on how to OC while keeping the scard white people factor down.

RichB said...

Breda, again, you are straying into japete territory.

The commenter above said the person was too young to carry a handgun, so he instead carried a shotgun. It is not his fault that that is the only way to exercise his right to self defense. Fault the laws that make 21 a magical age to gain human rights.

As for people who 'don't know a damn thing' about you, I read your blog posts plenty. I have had a lot of respect for you, right back to the gun nuts radio days. That does not mean that I must agree with your baseless attack on fellow rights activists.

Kansas Scout said...

Good post Breda! I took a look at the Open Carry movement last year and considered getting involved. Instead I got my CCW permit.
I think Open Carry is an important right but one best exercised with great prudence and discretion. Walking into a library with a shotgun might find me about to draw on you out of fear you could be a maniac spree killer. Why in God's name would you want to carry a shotgun in there?!
Frankly, this could blow up in our face with being over zealous with open carry. Not every area is as open to open carry as Wyoming or Arizona. And they never will be.
Free speech advocates don't run around in Libraries reading pornography out loud to test free speech. Nor should we brandish shotguns. How is scaring people helping our cause? It's not.
I support open carry and I think it's important to have when the occasion actually arises when you will NEED that gun on your person. Like in Katrina.
Your rules are a good start!

Breda said...

RichB, you seem to have a lot of projection issues going on.

First you accuse me of attempting to discredit you because I disagree with you but then you turn around and equate me with "japete" (an anti-gunner I never bothered to read anyway) because you disagree with me.

Please go amuse yourself at another blog. Thank you.

Joseph said...

SayUncle said...

While they're at it, maybe they can get some gay guys who OC to go to the library and do a kiss-in.


There's no reason to be redundant.

DM said...

"So Breda is a fudd because she would call the police on someone carrying a shotgun in the library?"

No. Calling the cops on someone behaving legally is just plain ignorant.

"I mean, you're not exactly winning hearts and minds here."

If winning hearts and minds means not calling out ignorant behavior like calling the cops on people behaving legally, count me out.

"Seriously, take a look at what you're saying and who you're saying it to."

Don't care. Someone says "my library" and says they'll call the cops on people behaving lawfully, it doesn't matter who they are . . . they are wrong.

"The only thing you're doing in calling her a Fudd - which is pretty much universally understood in the gun culture as someone who does not support gun rights - is making yourself look like you have no clue what you're talking about."

Correction. A Fudd supports gun rights . . . that they, in their infinite wisdom, find "acceptable". I do not personally practice the open carry of long arms, but if it is legal I would tolerate it. As a true proponent of the right to keep and bear arms, I do not opine on the acceptability or "manners" (as Breda did) of how or what others carry, so long as it is lawful and they are doing so in a peaceable way. There is no credible information that the person bearing the shotgun did so illegally or not in a peaceable way. However, Breda expresses quite clearly that that is unacceptable to her, meanwhile ignoring the fact that plenty of other Fudds would find her practice of OC itself unacceptable. You either support the RKBA and tolerate lawful, peaceable carry and all choices of legal arms, or you in some way or to some degree do not. The latter are Fudds. Breda does not meet the former description, but the latter.

"We can agree without being disagreeable."

We can also disagree without being disagreeable. I'm not attacking Breda personally. I'm attacking what she wrote, and arguing the case of how it is ignorant and Fuddish. Again, not saying anything about her personally but I'm sorry if my writing is imperfect and suggests a personal attack, when I am attacking her words and ideas.

Breda said...

You disagree, fine, I get it. You've had your say now, boys. Move on.

I don't owe you soapbox space or a forum in which to debate on my blog.

Mike W. said...

Nor should we brandish shotguns.
Can we please use correct terminology rather than the terminology of the anti-gunners? Just a pet peeve of mine.

Regardless of how you feel about MOC no one "brandished" a shotgun at the library.

Kansas Scout said...

@RichB
I don't care how you frame it. Someone walking into a library with a shotgun is ridiculous and would scare anyone. Calling this kind of statement a "baseless attack" is out of touch with reality. If a typical person not familiar with the issue finds themselves confronted by you, I am certain they will not walk away with a favorable impression of the pro second amendment bunch. We are NOT Black Panthers out to "Show the Man".

Bubblehead Les. said...

Not bad rules, actually. But since I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the TeeWee, I consider this more of a matter of Etiquette rather than Rules. Ohio is a little weird on Open Carry (basically, on property you own and/or have permission to hunt, and every little Hamlet seems to have their own laws). Keeping it simple, I see it as this: Everyone has the right to sneeze, but please, cover your nose when doing so.

As to Ms. Breda "Owning the Library", why Yes, She does. She and I both live in the Library District where she works, we pay our local property taxes to support it, and we both have had to deal with some very strange people who tend to come our respective branches. As a "stakeholder" in the Library System, I expect MY employees to follow the Law, but to also do what they can to ensure that the workplace I provide for them is maintained in a safe and friendly manner for the use of myself and others, including young, innocent children. If she DIDN'T call the cops, I (and a lot of Parents) would be wanting answers to why their children might have been put in danger.

Open Carry is a worthy goal towards securing more of our rights, but keep in mind, most people who live in or near the Big Cities that have been run by Anti-Gun Politicians see any one with a gun who is NOT in Police Uniform as a Threat. It is even an Official Policy of the Federal Government to call the Police on Open Carrying People, dontcha know. Ever heard of Homeland Security's "If you See Something, Say Something" campaign?

And as someone who has seen Ms. Breda shoot, I'm glad she's on the job.

Ms. Breda: eMail about the upcoming NRA Convention coming towards you.

DM said...

@Bubblehead
"Everyone has the right to sneeze, but please, cover your nose when doing so."

How is lawfully bearing a legal firearm in a peaceable manner equivalent to the anti-social act of sneezing on other people? That is what you are implying. Explain your rationale, please.

"As to Ms. Breda "Owning the Library", why Yes, She does. She and I both live in the Library District where she works, we pay our local property taxes to support it"

In a sense, yes, citizens are the "owners" of public property. This includes citizens lawfully bearing a legal firearm in a peaceable manner. Then, what justifies Breda to call the police on such a citizen, as she said she would do?

"and we both have had to deal with some very strange people"

Do you consider citizens lawfully bearing legal firearms in a peaceable manner "strange people"?

"I expect MY employees to follow the Law, but to also do what they can to ensure that the workplace I provide for them is maintained in a safe and friendly manner"

Do you consider citizens lawfully bearing legal firearms in a peaceable manner unsafe or unfriendly?

"If she DIDN'T call the cops, I (and a lot of Parents) would be wanting answers to why their children might have been put in danger."

Do you consider citizens lawfully bearing legal firearms in a peaceable manner a "danger"?

"Open Carry is a worthy goal towards securing more of our rights, but keep in mind, most people who live in or near the Big Cities that have been run by Anti-Gun Politicians see any one with a gun who is NOT in Police Uniform as a Threat. It is even an Official Policy of the Federal Government to call the Police on Open Carrying People, dontcha know. Ever heard of Homeland Security's "If you See Something, Say Something" campaign?"

Not true. I live in the Metro Detroit area. I open carry, and know many folk who open carry, in and around Detroit and its quite urbanized "suburbs". I practice OC daily, even during winter. I have a few years of experience, and others have quite a bit more years experience with this. The reality of open carry in my urban area and other urban areas around the country as I've experienced and keep abreast of on certain websites I frequent is that the general public, if they even notice you, are curious and ask questions. Law enforcement and other authorities, on the whole, are achieving or at a decent level of awareness, training, and proper response.

Kansas Scout said...

@DM
Have you lost your mind!??
Do you realize what your saying?!
I don't imagine you do. You have lost all perspective. It's just common sense that there are some places that make little sense to parade around armed. Yes, maybe it's your right but ought you do so. Hell no! If my kid was there trying to use the library and you walked in packing I would want to know why in hell you were packing in that place and is it worth making children uneasy.

TheMinuteman said...

I would like to point out this is not the way to win hearts and minds and a great way to set judicial precedent that would be against us. We still suffer for that decision.

While yes if someone is being legal they should be left alone. At the same time, brandishing firearms certainly is grounds to move to condition orange. If you are doing things like that, while it may be legal, it's certainly not smart, and no way to win support.

Those calling Breda a Fudd are obviously upset because their common sense wasn't good enough to realize those rules on their own.

hektor said...

So nobody was shot, right?

The only part about this thing that would bother me, is if I were an employee and therefore not allowed to carry my own.

Why would anyone consider a library any safer than anywhere else if they DIDN'T have the means of self defense?

I imagine all those books will probably absorb stray rounds better than drywall, but magic safety zones they are not.

Gay_Cynic said...

Alrighty.

SayUncle - find me a cute and enthusiastic guy and pick up my airfare/hotel, and I'm right there for your suggested protest. Be sure to invite folks from the womens and trans community, as well. Wouldn't want anyone left out.:)

OCFolk. Kiddo's, I OC, too. And Conceal. Depends on my environment, since I have my CPL and WA is an OC state. In general, I agree with those citing the ambassador concept - I'm more polite, more aware, and a bit more cautious when I'm carrying generally, and in OC mode particularly - I need to allot the time and patience to converse with nimrods, for one thing.

If one feels genuinely threatened, I'm not having a huge problem with summoning the officers of the law to sort it out. I don't particularly feel the need to rush over to someone OC'ing an M2 on a little red wagon in a library, for instance...I'll leave that to the folks that get *paid* for that kinda madness. Same as I don't clear buildings when responding to a burglary call-out for the office.

Other that that kind of thing, I trust Breda's instincts and sanity. She's not gonna go all nutjob on seeing an OC'r meander through her library as long as they pass the "dangerous nutjob" test...

I've met her, hung out with her, gabbed with her, and shot with her. Breda is good people, and has good judgement.

But yeah, OC-pistol doesn't much fret me much, barring bad behavior causing me worry about intent, and I don't expect it does Breda, either. Now...OC-shotgun or OC-M2...I begin to have wee questions about whether the new playmate is full of warm fuzzy thoughts and bundles of sanity.

And then I'll call the cops, and let them figure it out.

GC

Kansas Scout said...

I am amazed that there are people that think it is just fine to walk into a library to make a point about open carry, where children are present. Where did you boys grow up?
There are lots of places much more appropriate to prove your point than a library. Go find a Starbucks and chill with a coffee.
It's folks with ideas like this that will hurt the rest of us in our struggle to retain our second amendment rights.
In the meanwhile, KansasScout OUT!

Sabra said...

I'm pretty sure being obnoxious in a library with a gun gets you the same treatment as being obnoxious in a library without a gun. Go to your local public library and start shouting and see how quickly you are asked to leave. (And go 'head and say you're just exercising your first amendment rights.)

Which is to say: the gun is not the issue, the behavior is.

While they're at it, maybe they can get some gay guys who OC to go to the library and do a kiss-in.

What we need, obviously, is a lesbian OC topless nurse-in, just to push every single button possible at the same time.

Gay_Cynic said...

Eh, as long as it's legal

ken243_2000 said...

Breada, your lack of knowlege on this incident is scary. Then you go on to comment on this lack of knowlege, even worse. Where the heck did you get "shotgun" from? Your jumping to conclusions with little to no information is something I'd expect to see on the Brady web site. To get your facts;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK6mghkhaGk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acwm4Fjh5Ig

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiDqixmIz4U

Breda said...

Ken, since you're obviously new here, allow me to explain how a blog works. A blogger will see a news article and write about it, including links to said news articles. An astute blog reader will click through to those links to better understand what the blogger is referring to in his or her blog post.

Breda said...

Something else I've noticed? You rabid OCers are as quick to jump to name calling as anti-gunners. Interesting.

Clint said...

@DM
I often drive MY car though MY city. Sometimes MY girlfriend joins me, but never when I drive to MY job. However, when I drive, I always pay attention to MY environment.

The word "MY" has different meaning in different context.

If you do not understand the different forms of "Possession" you shouldn't be lecturing others.

BTW, if you are DELIBERATLY being provocative while clearly armed, legally you are deliberately threatening people.

You know why no one likes cops throwing their weight around? Because no one likes ANYONE throwing their weight around. Especially if

What you intend to do and what you do DO can be different things. (Or else the democrats would have made MY country a “workers paradise” by now)

DM said...

@Kansas Scout
"It's just common sense that there are some places that make little sense to parade around armed."

#1 "parade around armed".
That same subjective phrase is used:
--By some non-OC'ing gun owners and anti-gun people toward *any* open carriers carrying *anywhere*.
--By anti-gun people toward *anyone* legally carrying, concealed or openly, *anywhere*.

Thus, as you can see, the same subjective phrase can be used by anyone against anyone else. Subjective phrases are pretty much useless in a rational discussion.

#2 "common sense that there are some places . . ."
--Define the places.
--Outline and rationally argue what is "common sense" and what is not in regard to lawful carry of legal firearms in a peaceable manner in those places.

I'm willing to hear your arguments, discuss their merits, and perhaps learn something from you.


"If my kid was there trying to use the library and you walked in packing I would want to know why in hell you were packing in that place and is it worth making children uneasy."

Well, your curiousity and discussion of that with me is perfectly acceptable, and is a superior response to calling the cops, as Breda said she would do. And actually, curiousity and questioning is the primary response the general public seems to take when they notice someone OC'ing. Also, most people who've come up to me to express their opinion or ask questions aren't agitated at all as your comment seems to imply you would be, but it does *occasionally* happen and I handle the somewhat agitated person in a polite, respectful, and I hope informative manner as well.

Clint said...

@Rich

IMHO, Breda was agreeing with you in the beginning. Her remark about “rabid oc'ers” was (until this morning) directed at DM at 3:48 pm as he was being rude to her BTW. Afterwords YOU then jumped on her back, seemingly defending DM, his rudeness, and obtrusiveness. So, yes, you are going to to get the same treatment. Re-read the posts in order. Did you accomplish what you meant to do?

Look up Tammy Bruce on google video. She has a wonderful saying: “If what I'm saying doesn't apply to you, then I'm NOT taking about you.”

Here's the link:
Tammy Bruce - Contrary To Popular Belief - How Conservative Ideas Empower Women
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6225208845438591670#

.45ACP+P said...

Kansas Scout, do you object to children being subjected to the sight of armed police officers in libraries? Would you object to the National Guard bringing their weapons to an informational function at the library? No, you object to children seeing guns in the holsters of law abiding civilians!
If ANYONE is being a jerk, I object to it OC or not. The mere presence of a gun in a public place, in a state where it is recognized as legal,(Damn it, it should be in all states!)is not, and should not be a matter of concern to anyone. Unfortunately we are not there yet. This library has issues that Michigan Open Carry clearly is pushing on. In other states, State preemption of firearms laws has already been settled. It takes time and reminders to the rights tramplers before that message gets clear. State agencies , municipalities and boards are often damned slow to learn (losing a few expensive lawsuits is usually necessary) and must be forced against their will to comply with the laws. The Michigan OC guys in question may be looking to administer just such a learning experience on the library.

DM said...

@Kansas Scout
"I am amazed that there are people that think it is just fine to walk into a library to make a point about open carry,"

Open carriers use libraries for the same reasons as concealed carriers and non-armed patrons, and they do so both lawfully and peaceably. When you see this pop up in the news, usually the people attempting to "make a point" are library staff attempting to ban guns in contravention to state law or the authority they are granted. Let's be honest about who tries to "make a point" in these situations where law-abiding gun carriers are calmly and peaceably going about their business and public employees spazz out.

". . . where children are present."

I've seen this "it will scare the children" meme from you a couple of times now. Reality check: I've open carried around hundreds of families and hundreds of children in many, many public places in the several years I've practiced open carry. Children are not scared. I have two daughters (sometimes with me when I OC), I know by watching body language and what a child says whether or not a child is scared. My direct observation and experience over these few years is that children either display indifference or they much more readily than their parents act on their curiousity and ask questions. The experiences hundreds of other OC'ers write about, that I keep abreast on, at www.opencarry.org are essentially the same.

When speculation does not match reality, which do you choose to believe?


"It's folks with ideas like this that will hurt the rest of us in our struggle to retain our second amendment rights."

This is also an old, tired, and thoroughly debunked meme. The growing practice of open carry around the nation has not in any way hurt the RKBA. The recent rise of the practice of open carry started about a decade ago. Open carriers, in fact, often are at the forefront and the most active people in the gun-rights community in getting anti-gun local ordinances repealed. If anything, open carriers have a demonstrated (not theoretical) track record of expanding 2nd Amendment rights. Go look at www.opencarry.org and in particular, if you want to research an example, go to Michigan's forum. You will see documentation of numerous current efforts and past successes in protecting and expanding the RKBA.

DM said...

@.45ACP+P

"This library has issues that Michigan Open Carry clearly is pushing on. In other states, State preemption of firearms laws has already been settled."

Actually, state preemption in Michigan is extremely well-settled and our laws are very strong with regard to prohibiting local units of government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, this library has issues. Its main issue is that it is doing illegal things. I don't know about anyone else commenting here, but I and my fellow gun-rights supporters here in Michigan will fight illegal attempts to infringe on the RKBA. Michigan pro-gun people, and not just open carriers or members of MOC, will push on this library to stop the illegal acts it is guilty of perpetrating.

"The Michigan OC guys in question may be looking to administer just such a learning experience on the library."

And, to clarify again, this library continues to perpetrate illegal action, in contravention to our state preemption laws. Open carriers, and Michigan gun-rights supporters as well, did not start this fight but, as in many other cases with some other offending local units of government, we will not allow the RKBA to be infringed upon and we will see it through to, ultimately, this recalcitrant library getting itself back to complying with the law, as we all are expected to do.

Sailorcurt said...

Holy cow Breda...defensive much?

You are one of my favorite bloggers, I was one of your first commenters when you started and I've been reading your stuff since the beginning.

You posted on something controversial and did so in a way guaranteed raise the ire of those who are the subject of your post, but then get upset when they respond in kind?

"a few of their buffoons members"

What was that about "name-calling" you said a few comments back? I'm not sure I understood you clearly.

Oh...yea...you used the strikeout function to make it clear that you weren't REALLY calling them buffoons, just that you WANTED to, but are too polite...or something.

I originally started reading the comments just because I was going to point out that news outlets regularly do their best to paint the open carriers in the worst light possible in cases like these.

I may or may not agree that it's the best idea for someone to carry a shotgun in public to make a point, but I'm certainly not going to just blindly believe the way the media characterizes it.

I daresay that were a reporter to write a story around the picture of yourself that you posted, they would characterize your activities as "brandishing" or "parading around with" (that one I got from a comment on this thread) your firearm, imply that you're a few cards short of a full deck and would inevitably get in a reference or two to the "wild west".

Should we condemn you for someone else's hoplophobic reaction? You radical you...

At any rate, you put up a disparaging post on a controversial topic, but when people express vigorous disagreement, you get all defensive, play the victim card and tell them to go away.

I'm flatly disappointed in you.

In my humble opinion, if you aren't willing to vigorously defend your position from strong opposition...especially when your post on the subject was presented in such a disparaging tone...you should probably stay away from controversial topics and/or avoid the disparaging tone.

Yes, it's your house and you can set whatever rules you want...but, again in my humble opinion, you invited the commenters into your house with the nature of your post. Inviting guests and then kicking them out because they have the audacity to disagree with you is just...well...rude.

Sure, the tone could have been better in some of the comments...but, then again, the tone of your original post could have been a bit better too.

You can't plant weeds and expect to grow tulips.

Borepatch said...

Dudes, we need a Godwin's Law for firearms - anyone who compares someone to Japete has just lost the argument.

I mean, comparing Breda to Japete is an own goal of epic proportions.

When you leave your comment, you're trying to convince someone about something. Well, you convinced me, all right - that you have absolutely no idea who's on your side.

Boy, howdy, you wouldn't think that someone would have to explain this.

Breda said...

Sailorcurt, you'll notice I haven't pulled the post or stopped commenters from commenting - mostly because they are doing a wonderful job of proving my original point for me. The open carry movement - winning hearts and minds! (except...not)

And as far as "inviting" commenters here? As if.

Also, I asked commenters to go away because frankly, this sniping back and forth has become tiresome and the comments have quickly devolved into "too long, didn't read"-type screeds and I'm getting bored hitting delete in my email.

You might have noticed that, unlike a lot of gunbloggers, I do not waste time debating or defending my posts because everything I wanted to say is included in my post. Usually. I regret now not including the word "uncouth" to "buffoon." Oooh, name-calling! But allow me the same out as commenter DM - I am not attacking OCers personally, you see. I am attacking their uncouth buffoonish behavior.

And I would like to be able to say I'm sorry you're disappointed in me, but I'm not. I do not blog for your approval.

.45ACP+P said...

@DM, I was in no way making judgment on the actions of Michigan Open Carry. I was explaining for those who might not be aware of the process. In point of fact sir, I applaud those efforts. I just wish the rights tramples were the ones to pay the law suit. The attorney spokesman for the library should be financially hurt for his stupidity. In Virginia, (where I do believe the issue a bit more settled) the attorney for the board would be informing the board of the illegality of their policy and the cost in law suits of continuing it. By pushing the issue, Michigan Open Carry is bringing them along. Again sir, I APPLAUD this.

Sailorcurt said...

I don't expect you to blog for my approval...or anyone else's.

But similarly, my disappointment in you is not predicated upon you caring about it.

I'm pretty certain that the members of Michigan Open Carry don't design their activism activities around your approval either.

Moving on...

Step 1: Put up a post that blatantly engages in name-calling and derision.

Step 2: The people who are subject to the name-calling and derision respond in strong terms.

Step 3: Play the victim card, decry name-calling and derision and tell people to go away.

Sounds pretty japete-like to me.

Granted, the analogy isn't perfect: Breda didn't delete any comments or refuse to post them; but there are undeniable similarities.

Doesn't mean I think Breda agrees with japete about anything or is similar to her in any other way...just that she's engaging in similar tactics.

Some might not like the implications of the comparison, and I wouldn't have made it myself had it not already been broached, but that doesn't make the similarities any less valid.

As far as the "in your face" sort of open carry activism. Bad press and raising the ire of the more timid among gun-rights supporters aside: I'd say that it's met with many more successes than it has failures.

Breda said...

As far as the "in your face" sort of open carry activism. Bad press and raising the ire of the more timid among gun-rights supporters aside: I'd say that it's met with many more successes than it has failures.

LOL, seriously? Where? Their shenanigans and bullying tactics can't even manage to get clear support from gunbloggers.

DM said...

@Breda
"But allow me the same out as commenter DM - I am not attacking OCers personally, you see. I am attacking their uncouth buffoonish behavior."

I also disagree with anyone here who has portrayed you as personally attacking any OC'er. I do agree with some points that were raised or that you should have considered challenging the validity of your assertion that, in this matter, the OC'er in question was "uncouth" or "bufoonish":

--Federally, a person under 21 may not buy a handgun from a dealer. In Michigan, a person under 21 may not lawfully carry concealed. Therefore, in order to provide for defense of self or family, a person under 21 in Michigan must open carry and, as can be quite often the case, the firearm carried must be a non-handgun due to the convenience of obtaining a non-handgun from a dealer versus obtaining a handgun from a private seller (which is lawful here in Michigan, but is not nearly as convenient). The OC'er may be (and some are indicating he is) under 21.
--There is no credible or verified information that the person was not behaving in a peaceable way.

While you may certainly claim some behavior is uncouth or bufoonish, in the interests of appearing credible it is incumbent upon any of us to respond to valid and substantial criticisms of the foundation of our assertions.

A person carried a long-arm (it may or may not even have been a shotgun) while conducting his business in a public library in Michigan. He did so legally and peaceably. There may have been darn good reason the only option this gentleman had for preparedness for defense of self or family was open carry, and open carry of a non-handgun. The laws of Michigan clearly support this, as does the Michigan constitution itself. I do not see anything bufoonish or uncouth in taking care to conduct one's self in accordance with the law and a constitution. You will have to point out for me what verified point of fact you have about the situation which demonstrates lack of couth or bufoonery.

DM said...

@Breda
"Their shenanigans and bullying tactics"

Please point to your source of info on your allegation that OC'ers engage in shenanigans or bullying.

DM said...

@.45ACP+P

I wasn't criticizing you, just clarifying and amplifying. Thanks for your support.

DM said...

"In Michigan, a person under 21 may not lawfully carry concealed. Therefore, in order to provide for defense of self or family, a person under 21 in Michigan must open carry . . ."

I said this above, and actually need to add to it. Since a CPL (Concealed Pistols License) is required to lawfully conceal, a person 21 or older also has only the option of open carry if they do not have a CPL. In addition, due to economic or other circumstances, a person's long arm may be their *only* firearm at any given point in time. Thus, in Michigan, a person of any age may be open carrying a long arm for any one or more of a myriad of different reasons.

drTodd said...

Actually, as I understand it, the person with the firearm (it may have been a "MI pistol", as Michigan defines a pistol as a firearm under 30" in length) left when told the library prohibited firearms and was never anything but polite... nor were any OCers who went to the library to attend meeting(s) with Library management. Additionally, the local PD showed up the first few times; now they refuse to even come when called by the Library staff. If OCers were truly causing a serious disturbance by being "obnoxious", don't you think that they could be asked to leave for that behavior... and wouldn't the PD enforce the trespass? Obviously, what the OCers are doing is legal and they are NOT exhibiting behavior which warrants being asked to leave.

My understanding is that no OCer has ever been told they must leave...they are only told that the library's policy prohibits firearms. The OC reports that I have seen indicate that the OCer generally thanks the staff for the information and continues their business. At that point they are assigned a "personal, unarmed guard" to assist them in the use of the library services. At no time are they told to leave.
In Michigan, we have a very strong preemption law which states that local units of government can't just make up their own firearm rules... the library feels they can ignore the law. That is the issue: "Can government officials and employees ignore settled law?"

TBeck said...

A shotgun is seen by most as an offensive weapon. How would you react if your neighborhood police officer carried a shotgun when responding to a shoplifting call? It would be viewed as an unnecessary provocation on the part of the responding officer. Carrying a shotgun into a library may be legal, in the same manner that the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church are legal, but neither activity is polite or prudent.

DM said...

@TBeck
"A shotgun is seen by most as an offensive weapon."

Point to the source of this assertion, please.

"How would you react if your neighborhood police officer carried a shotgun when responding to a shoplifting call? It would be viewed as an unnecessary provocation on the part of the responding officer. Carrying a shotgun into a library may be legal, in the same manner that the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church are legal, but neither activity is polite or prudent."

So, you say that the bearing of a certain legal firearm in a lawful and peaceable way is "unnecessary provocation", not "polite", or not "prudent". Anti-gun folks say the same thing about *all* civilian carry. Don't they? Yes, they do.

And, just as I do with them, I ask for your rational argument for that assertion. Without such rational argument, your rhetoric is as empty as theirs.

ASM826 said...

I'm obviously late to the party, but I like your rules, even if I'm carrying concealed, or not carrying at all.

Joshkie said...

Nice Post Breda. I agree with your point. Also, in most states brandishing or make reference to the gun can be considerd a threat with a deadly wepon. Going where you are not wanted just because you can is boarish and rude. I wonder how many of those gun guys and gals actualy go to the library when they are not protesting.

:-)
Josh

westofthewest said...

This whole open carry thing reminds me of gay people conspicuously making out in public back in the '80s.

Maybe one day they'll get their own parade too.

TBeck said...

DM, Seriously? You want a "source"? Hold on a second while I get you some footnotes and bibliography. Is APA format acceptable? My "source" is almost forty years of observation about how American society works, with seventeen years as a licensed carrier. Yes, shotguns are OFFENSIVE weapons. A handgun is an emergency response tool. When a person is EXPECTING trouble they reach for the longarm.

DM said...

@Joshkie
"Going where you are not wanted just because you can is boarish and rude."

No OC'er in the situation under discussion was in a place just because they could be.

But, your general statement is erroneous anyway, as applied to the situation. Non-federal government buildings in Michigan, with the exception of courts, may not be made off-limits to the legal carry of guns (concealed or open). That is illegal. Therefore, a public employee of the state may not want concealed or open carriers on the public property, but acting on that to ban gun carriers is *illegal*. In such a situation, the source of the boorish and rude behavior is the public employee. I think anyone of sound mind would conclude that a person not complying with the law is THE ONE being rude and boorish, if anyone is.


"I wonder how many of those gun guys and gals actualy go to the library when they are not protesting."

When we are not protesting to protect the rights of all gun owners and carriers (we will protest the infringement of *any* lawful exercise of gun ownership or carry), we are going about our daily business. If that includes a trip to the library, we'll be there. Personally, I do the vast majority my reading and media consumption by way of internet, rather than library, so I'm only at the library maybe once or twice a year. But, I am open carrying there, and I've never had a problem with the public employees there acting illegally.

With regard to the protesting, if something about that is a *negative* in your mind, then I am pleased to plead guilty to whatever it is you are thinking. We have been very successful and effective here in Michigan in making tangible gains in removing illegal anti-gun laws and public policies which affect all carriers, concealed or open.

If you do not like people like that, I am pleased to *not* be in your circle of affinity.

drTodd said...

@ TBeck said...
A shotgun is seen by most as an offensive weapon. How would you react if your neighborhood police officer carried a shotgun when responding to a shoplifting call? It would be viewed as an unnecessary provocation on the part of the responding officer. Carrying a shotgun into a library may be legal, in the same manner that the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church are legal, but neither activity is polite or prudent.

FEBRUARY 12, 2011 1:08 PM

Isn't the same argument made against OCers in general?

Perhaps you feel comfortable assigning certain terms to firearms; I don't.
I would argue that in most areas of the country a single-barrel shotgun is the type of firearm that has the least amount of restriction upon. In fact, I could be wrong but even the royal subjects in the UK can still get a shotgun license. So if your "experience" tells you whether a shotgun is worthy of carry around town is immaterial; it could also be the most acceptable firearm to carry around town.
What concerns me are the media links provided above; CERTAINLY objective reporting. (sarcasm)

"Flashing a holster" could have been a person carrying a holster openly on the hip; a "shotgun" could have been a pistol; and a "violation of Library Policy" is actually a non-issue, because the Library can't restrict firearms. So what we have in this thread is a blogger who, a librarian herself, gets upset and indignant about behavior reported by someone who wants to present OC in the most negative light. Instead of due diligence and actually asking people who were there or getting both sides, she passes on the reporter's information as "truth". Interesting, and also very sad.

DM said...

@TBeck
"My 'source' is almost forty years of observation about how American society works, with seventeen years as a licensed carrier."

Ah, well then, before responding with my opinion below, let me give my qualifications. I don't know when you start counting, but I give myself 35 years of observing American society (I don't count my early years). I served four years in the US Army, a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, honorably discharged at the rank of Sergeant (E-5), combat veteran of the Persian Gulf war of '90-'91. I have been licensed to carry concealed since 1992 (Florida, then Michigan), that being a nearly 20 year span of time.


"Yes, shotguns are OFFENSIVE weapons. A handgun is an emergency response tool. When a person is EXPECTING trouble they reach for the longarm."

My experience, particularly my military experience as a trained infantryman in small and light arms, informs me of the opinion that no weapon may be innately called "offensive" or "defensive". The terms "offensive" and "defensive", applied as adjectives to weapons, in both military and civilian contexts purely depends on what the *user* is attempting to accomplish. For example, in my day, the Beretta 9mm was the standard issue military side-arm. It was considered a "defensive" weapon when employed by, typically, an officer as a backup to his rifle. However, it was an "offensive" weapon when we carried it into the Iraqi's bunker systems, clearing them out. In those cases (very tight quarters) it was THE best offensive weapon for the user's purpose. We similarly had mixed "offensive" and "defensive" uses with shotguns in the military, and the same is absolutely true for civilians. A person using their shotgun to rob, hurt, or kill people is employing the shotgun as an offensive tool. A person grabbing their shotgun at the sound of their home window breaking in preparation for the possibility that a bad guy will come through their bedroom door is employing the shotgun as a defensive tool.

So it goes with bearing arms for self-defense. The user is bearing his firearm for the purpose of defense, and defense only. The handgun carried in a holster is in just as defensive a posture as the long arm slung on the back.

SewerDweller said...

Speaking as a person who is pro-gun, pro-carry, and pro-open carry, I'd just like to say that my first reaction to reading the article was 'wow, what a bunch of reckless assholes.'

A protest is held for the express purpose of confrontation with authority to raise awareness.

Sometimes, authority over-reacts, violently. Google 'erik scott las vegas'. You'll see what I'm talking about. And that kind of over-reaction is not rare. It's not common, but it's not 'one in a million' either. It's a measurable risk.

So if you tresspass in a children's section with a loaded gun, and refuse to leave until the cops show up, you just involved my kids in your little protest.

"There's a man in the chilren's section with a loaded gun, and he wont leave, officer..." it's pretty easy to see that ending in tragedy.

By all means, have your protests. You have the right to do so. But do it somewhere -other- than the kid's section.

Because you have -no right- to risk my kid's lives to a stray bullet to forward your political agenda.

P.S. - hey breda, nice post. dont take any shit from these guys.

TBeck said...

Gun rights are on a roll. We now have CCW in most national parks. Arizona has constitutional open carry. Wisconsin is debating right-to-carry this year. Oklahoma will probably pass college CCW after it has already passed a law protecting employees' right to keep a gun in their car at their workplace. Texas will probably pass college CCW this year and may pass open carry.

We have the momentum because more citizens are recognizing that armed citizens are not automatically spree killers. Now, when somebody pulls a bone-headed political masturbation stunt like bringing a shotgun to a library, we lose ground. If the guy wants to lick his nuts he should do it in private.

fast richard said...

Aside from some unsupported allegations in a newspaper article, I see no evidence that MOC violated any law, or any of Breda's suggested rules. If the Michigan preemption statute is as clear as the one in Minnesota, the library board is in violation of the law. I would choose to come out in support of the law abiding citizens of MOC, rather than the law breaking government operatives who are trying to harass them.

PPPP said...

Okay. I've only made it through about a third of the comments so far. However, for those of you getting upset about Breda's comment:
("You come into my library carrying a shotgun and acting like an asshole, I'm going to call the cops on you too.") you need to re-read it. Specifically this part "...and acting like an asshole,...".

She wasn't saying she'd automatically call the cops on someone carrying a shotgun in the library. Just someone who's being an asshole while carrying said shotgun. Because assholes with shotguns are flat-out dangerous individuals.

Oh, and for those of you upset about her use of "You come into my library ..." terminology - Grow up. You know damn well she wasn't claiming personal ownership of the library. Using such a term is common, and is generally understood to be intended as not a literal statement. Like saying "come see me at my office" or "at my college" or "at my church". It implies your attachment in some fashion to that library/office/college/church, not the institution's attachment to you as owner.

Phillip said...

Oh my... I can't believe I'm about to post this.

I'm in FL, and support open carry. When I visit WV I open carry sometimes.

That being said... I'm really not liking the guys that have come on here and been abrasive to Breda and others. While I still support the concept of open carry, I don't know that I'd be supportive of the individuals that are representing the MOC group on here.

As someone else has mentioned, you should be using OC to educate and win support. If you talk to people in person the way you've been talking to US, not just Breda but the people reading the comments, then you're going to run into resistance to your message.

BC said...

The Michigan open carry group contains a LARGE number of jackasses.

They try to stage stupid publicity stunts like carrying a shotgun in a library, or an AR-15 in a family restaurant. (Google up Ponderosa open carry in Hastings MI)

Open carry is an awesome thing to be able to do. This particular group seems intent on scaring enough people to f(*& it up for the rest of us.

Jennifer said...

Wow! Okay, I'm betting the news turned this event into a lot more than it was. BUT Breda responded quite appropriately to the news story in that in order to win the heart and minds of those on the fence, we should behave in a way that is beyond reproach. By all means, please do open carry. It shows that normal people have taken an interest in self defense. But make it NORMAL. She is not trying to pass a law. She is presenting guidelines to help the cause. If you choose to open carry, like it or not, you have put yourself out there as an ambassador for all gun owners. No, it shouldn't be that way, and in time I hope it is not. But you must understand the reality of the culture in that open carry is not currently readily accepted. In order to get there, we must be exceptionally polite and beyond reproach.
I live in a non-open carry state. But there are certain stores where we have cultivated a relationship such that the proprietors request to see what we are carrying on any given day. It is completely legal for us to reveal that to them upon request on that private property. These are not gun-nut types either. I'm talking about older ladies that run the specialty fabric store. We have shown them that very nice, likable people carry guns and it's normal. We have NEVER pushed the fact that we had been carrying legally in their store for months before the subject was broached.
Thankfully, I have already decided that I am in full support of open carry, otherwise the actions of some commenters here would have turned me off of the practice.

Cargosquid said...

What the OC guys did in the library was legal. Fine. What they did was also HORRIBLE PR. You want to convince people that OC is a good and normal practice? Don't scare the non-gunners.

And SewerDweller has a point. You want to make a political statement about firearms, KNOWING that police have been known to shoot people without actual cause, DO IT SOMEWHERE that there are no children.

And PPP said it. Bone up on your reading comprehension. You come here and attack Breda on what she wrote, and yet, you missed the most important part of what she said and proceeded to fulfill her description: DON'T act like an asshole....

If you don't act like an asshole while carrying a firearm, WHAT SHE WROTE DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU.

Big Gay Al said...

Well, so many comments, so little time. First, the guy with the shotgun was NOT acting like an "asshole." He tried to politely explain that the libraries rules were illegal (which they are). When that failed, after a short conversation with the SECURITY GUARD, not the cops, he left before the police got there. As usual, the local MSM (main stream media) got it wrong.

As for his being in the teen area, if I recall correctly, he IS a teenager, 18 or 19. And the flashing the holster bit, fiction. It seems the library board knows who belongs to MOC and when they show up to attend the board meeting, they get hassled by the security guard.

So you tell me, who's acting like the asshole?

Will said...

DM:
You are dancing around the fact that the reality of carrying a long gun in an urban environment is oriented toward an offensive use, not defensive. The whole point of a LONG gun is a weapon that can reach out a ways with decisive stopping power. Just because you have it slung on your shoulder means nothing, especially to someone who knows how fast it can be brought to bear.
----------
A point I want to bring up is something that was mentioned in passing by a commenter.
In this day of increasing numbers of Active Mass Shooters, both local and terrorist types, why would you OC a long gun around a city?

My first thought on seeing this would be: a massacre in the making. Granted, this would vary depending on the specifics of the locale, and other variables. I realize that a lot of gun packers would be beating feet if they thought, or saw, this was occurring. (I would be very interested in finding out what percentage of gun owners or carriers are of the "sheepdog" mentality. Anyone have ideas on this?).

Frankly, seeing someone heading into a library toting a long gun would have me debating whether to drop them before they reach the door. Waiting until they make an obvious move to shoot someone is the expected standard, but that can leave a lot of bodies littering the area. (Hmm, this would make a very challenging FoF scenario to role play.) I game this sort of problem out in my head, for various locations, incorporating as much real life incident background as I can dig up. When you keep everything as realistic as possible, you discover that things can easily go sideways very quickly. Factoring in the possible actions/reactions of bystanders is a major variable in writing this sort of scenario. They can complicate the hell out of a public incident.

fast richard said...

This discussion has certainly taken some strange turns.

Now Will says "Frankly, seeing someone heading into a library toting a long gun would have me debating whether to drop them before they reach the door."

Will, you are describing a fantasy of murdering someone, just because you see a gun. That is NOT a sheepdog mentality. That is a Mad Dog mentality. Please try to reconnect with reality. If you cannot do so, please stay far away from me.

Divemedic said...

If a person walks into a bank in Florida during the month of July, and is wearing a knee length trench coat and a ski mask, would that make you suspicious? Raise your hackles a little? The reason that it would is not that the person doesn't have the right to wear a ski mask or a trench coat, it is that wearing them in that situation is not normal behavior.

The same is true for carrying a shotgun into a library. Legal or not, it is outside of commonly accepted behavior and will rightly have people looking your way.

The goal of OC as a form of political expression should be to sway public opinion in your direction by normalizing the OC in people's minds.

If you are making even pro-rights folks uncomfortable, you are being counter productive.

Unless the goal is to be a drama queen who is looking for attention, in which case, you have accomplished your mission, and hurt the cause of gun rights in the process. Congratulations.

PPPP said...

Excellent summation, Divemedic.

Roberta X said...

The saddest thing is that everyone's fave vicious antigunner is linking to this discussion in glee.

Hey, I'm down with OC but, dammit, you get a lot farther smiling nicely and carrying a gun than you do only carrying the gun.

DM said...

"The saddest thing is that everyone's fave vicious antigunner is linking to this discussion in glee."
--Roberta X

And he's proving one of the points I've already made and some others allude to or agree with. The anti-gunners just as easily throw the empty rhetoric of "manners" and "common sense" at gun ownership and carry as some gun owners/carriers here are doing to open carriers. The sad thing is apparently the gun owners/carriers here doing that seem to not be drawing the clear and obvious observation that the rhetoric of "manners" and "common sense" is the exact same rhetoric the anti-gunners use.

To prove this to yourself, take any of the above statements against open carriers and replace "open carrier" with "gun owner", "open carry" with "concealed carry", etc., google the statement, and you should pull up plenty of hits on anti-gun and gun control websites, blogs, news articles, etc.

Gun owners and carriers, as a group, have suffered through such empty rhetoric and a dominant trait among us is a desire to leave rhetoric, emotion, and subjective language out of arguments about the RKBA and focus on the law, the constitution, and holding people to abide peaceably within those parameters. We know from history, as a group, when people start talking about "manners" and "common sense", what follows is a Frankenstein of varying opinions on those and the subsequent threatening and chipping away at the right to keep and bear arms.

It's amazing that there still exists some gun owners/carriers so easily falling into the trap of rhetorical subjectivity and relativism. It's an intellectually bankrupt and legislatively dangerous path, proven by history to be so.

DM said...

"what follows is a Frankenstein of varying opinions on those"

Yes, those of you who are well-read are correct that what I meant was "Frankenstein's monster".

I caught this as I was pressing the "publish" button. :)

Bushwack said...

My Two Cents:
The "Rules" are nothing more than common sense.

Sounds like ALL of the posters here are on the same side (GUN RIGHTS) and it sounds a lot like cannibalism, we are eating our own.

I open carry when I have to, meaning I don't have the leagal ability to "Conceal" if I did I would. I can only carry an UNLOADED firearm, but I can have a loaded magazine on my hip. Less than 2 secs I got a personal protective device. Not perfect but better than nothing.

I suggest we all take those "Rules" and put them in practice. It won't hurt the movement at all, NOT using them WILL hurt the movement.

As far as the "gay in" um No Fkn way will I be attending that one... However the Lesbian one will get my full attention. Yep I'm a neanderthal knuckle dragger and the double standard is alive and well as long as the chicks are HOT!

Kansas Scout said...

Well said Divemedic.
There are many things that are legal. You have the right to do many things in many places. It only takes one fool to do the wrong thing in the wrong place to hurt everyone. It's how bad laws get made.
There are lots of places that OC will never be socially acceptable and I see no reason to find that bad. That's what Concealed Carry is for.
Pushing the boundaries too hard will end up making gun owners look like idiots. I never thought I would meet someone on our side that would embarrass me like this. Well...Ted Nugent does too ;)

Bushwack said...

See now ya go and bring Ted Nugent into this. WHY? That guy has done more for Hunters/trappers/gun owners and wounded warriors than most but because you don't agree with his "Style" he is embarrassing? C'mon get a clue.

Ted's got an audience, he says what he believes and for the most part I agree with him on damn near everything. You do know that he also works with Law enforcement right?

Just take the rules and keep trying to get folks engaged and educated, leave the people that are fighting on the front lines alone...

DM said...

@Bushwack
"it sounds a lot like cannibalism, we are eating our own."

I'm a true defender of the right to keep and bear arms. If you are keeping and bearing arms peaceably within the parameters of the constitution and the law, I have no quarrel with you. There is no shame, wrongness, ill-manner, or lack of sense in exercising a basic right peaceably and within the parameters of the law and constitution. If a particular manner of exercising a right is not acceptable and tolerable, it should be found as such through due process of law and made illegal. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, tolerate your fellow citizens responsibly exercising it, and make an appointment with your counselor to deal with any residual anxieties or phobias you should be rid of.

Anyone not in that camp is not "my own", and I shall tear through them in debate, with relish, as a shark through a seal. It's not cannibalism if they're not your own. I'll take them with hot sauce and a side of cole slaw, please.

Bushwack said...

@DM
There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. IF you can't see that you are pretty much alone in a camp.

While I wouldn't have called the cops on anyone bringing a shotgun into a library, I would have certainly gave my pistol a slight tap to make sure it was there... take that as you will.

This is not about our rights, this is more about civility. We can be civil and gain friends, or we can be idiots and never get anyone else to our side.

This isn't a zero-sum game. It's common decency and manners. IF you are looking for a confrontation come to Cali, or NY, those places are lost for the most part. We need MORE help to gain our rights back, and giving the anti's fodder and talking points is not helpful to our side.

And yes you are still "Our Own" regardless of this little tiff.

Take a chill, and realize it's not as bad as you make it out.

Phillip said...

DM, you're starting to remind me of the wild-eyed street preacher telling everyone that the end is near and we're all going to hell unless we repent right now.

Everything said and done is perfectly legal and constitutionally protected, but it doesn't get anyone on your side but the ones that are already there, and makes everyone even slightly more moderate want to get as far away from you as possible.

bmagill10 said...

Wow--Breda. Apparently, some idiots feel the need to use your blog as a soapbox to project their bile. Congrats! I would imagine the hit numbers keep rising...much to the chagrin of some folks.

I think your rules are quite common-sense, actually. If gun owners want people to take them seriously, then they need to act worthy of being taken seriously. Same with politicians, pastors, etc. Anybody needs to act in a way worthy of respect.

I feel like this: just because you legally can, doesn't mean you should. If you act in a way that makes you look like an unworthy idiot, then you will be treated as such. If you post blog comments, for example, like an ignorant, rabid, whining 14 year old who is p*ssed at his daddy--well, don't whine and complain if other people treat you like an ignorant, rabid, whining 14 year old. Very simple, folks.

I am in favor of OC, but I don't think I know any gun owners who aren't. The issue is behavior--and there are a couple "people" (and I use that term lightly) commenting who are the reason alot of people don't support gun rights. If idiots like them would shut the hell up, the rest of us wouldn't have such a hard time fighting for our own rights.

@DM--if you can stop screaming like a 16 year old boy long enough to get your head out of your arse, I'm talking about you. People like you make the rest of us cringe when you say you're a "gun owner". We don't want to be associated with you or seen with you in public because, I'll bet, you cause all kinds of trouble about "YOUR RIGHTS!" Just because you have the freedom of speech, doesn't mean the rest of us want to hear your crap.

Breda said...

Thank you everyone for your input but you do realize that this comment thread has become completely ridiculous now, right? I mean, DM is now having fantasies of himself as a shark eating a spicy seal with a side of cole slaw. Give me a break.

DM said...

Quote anything I've written above about the specific incident in question, open carry in general, or the right to keep and bear arms in general which you feel is wrong.

Keep the quote specific, in context, and argue how it is wrong. Be prepared to respond to arguments.

I have not criticized anyone here in a general, subjective manner. I've been specific on what someone said, and my challenges and points have been specific to what they said. When I've responded to someone, you will notice I start by quoting their words, then going into my challenge of it.

Breda said...

Pro-gun or not, DM, you're quickly becoming nothing more than an argumentative, tiresome troll.

My comment section is not your personal forum, nor is it your place to debate my other readers. If you have so much to say, I suggest you go write something on your own blog - with only 3 posts, you'll have plenty of room there to elaborate on how you're a deadly rights-defending shark, ready to slaughter seals. Or whatever.

Alan said...

100th comment.

(The 99 was bugging me)

Bushwack said...

Breda, with all due respect if you don't moderate your comment area that's exactly what it becomes. And to some degree it's a good thing. You get to hear opposing or idiotic viewpoints (Or are subjected to them)

In defense of DM, his opinions are not that far out of the mainstream of gun owners. Most of us want to get all up in the face of those that would try and take our rights.

I don't believe he "Sharked" anyone here, but he alienated a lot of folks because of his comments. Same thing happens with the anti's and Gun rights advocates. DM pretty much proved yours and most of your commenters points.

Like I suggested, we need to stop the cannibalism, we need to stand together, we need to make sure we fight the battles the right way, and until the first shot is fired the right way is civil, respectful and using our manners.

My last comment on the subject. thanks for hearing me out.

DM said...

Breda, I understand that I have presented disagreements and challenges to what some people have written here, and disagreements and challenges may sometimes be uncomfortable for people to digest and respond to specifically. But I have tried to be precise in my comments to quote what someone said and present valid and non-spurious counter-points which represent my bona fide position on any issue discussed.

The reason I am writing here and not on my blog (which I just only started recently, so please pardon that I only have 3 posts there at this time) is that this is where the participants in this particular discussion, including me, are congregating.

Breda said...

Bushwack, thanks for the tip. Perhaps next time I will moderate comments, starting with those that attempt to tell me how or what MY blog, that I pay money for, should or should not be.

maddmedic said...

Bad PR.
1. Toss your dead and gutted deer, bear etc on top of your car and drive around showing it off.
2. Strut into the local bar with the dumbass sign out front welcoming hunters while wearing your blaze orange and announcing after you down a few drinks your headed for the woods and gonna shoot yerself a big buck.
Bad PR.
So therefore why go somewhere you damn well know you are going to cause some folks to get a bit upset? Why? To prove a point that you can? Because it makes you feel like your promoting our Rights?
Your not. Called bad PR.
We have open carry in Minnesota and I have, but never ever where I felt it was going to upset people.
Cripes....
Use your gray matter.

Justthisguy said...

Hey! My comment didn't appear! I was polite and all, too! Is Breda angry at me because I think "weeding" is an evil librarian conspiracy to send good old books down into the memory hole?

Justthisguy said...

P.s. I have been very suspicious about librarians since the time I learned to read, when I was about 5 or 6 years old. It always seemed to me when I was a little kid, that the librarians considered it their duty to keep me from reading the books I wanted to read. (There were some honorable exceptions. I name Mrs. Early at my junior high school as one of them.)

YoelB said...

Despite the photos, I might not recognize Breda if I came to her town (maybe if I were in her library, but there would be context there) but my thought experiment involves imagining that I would. Because I know a bit about how she thinks, I know she's level headed.
So, what message would I get if I saw her open carrying a long gun in a public place? I'd think that there was some sort of immediate danger. The danger wouldn't be from Breda, I know her to be sane and responsible. But I'd be alarmed. Not because of the gun per se. Because of the implicit message: she knows something I don't and thinks there is good reason to be carrying a long gun in the library.

Concluding the thought experiment. Suppose the person with the gun was someone I didn't know? I would be forced to judge the situation solely by the OCer's demeanor. Is she behaving with appropriate self control and responsibility (which would include communicating responsibly?) If not, how am I wrong to be concerned?

SpeakerTweaker said...

Judas Flaming Priest. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

Despite the legal standing, if a library employee (i.e. works for and is paid by the library) is told, "Guns are against the rules here," then when they see someone with a gun that person is breaking the rules. You're not going to change anyone's mind or educate anyone if your argument is wholly and entirely predicated on breaking the rules.

Why do you think Gura doesn't walk into SCOTUS shindigs with these SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!1!!ELEVEN!!! types? Or with someone who was convicted of felony-level - right or wrong - lawbreaking? They want someone who's level-headed and, dare I say it, likeable. That is what gets laws changed. That is how you educate.

Seriously. Also? Breda's "My Library" statement? No different than me calling the office that I do not own and yet work in "My Office." Jeeezus, y'all.



tweaker

Kim said...

I support gun ownership and the carrying thereof as much as anyone, and (I think, based on past activities like the Nation of Riflemen and National Ammo Day), more than most.

Nevertheless, if you walk into a public place like a library carrying an uncased long gun, I think you're acting like a dick.

If you don't like the rules of the place, and think they're illegal, file a lawsuit. That's the right way to do it.

Living up to all the (negative) expectations of the GFWs is NOT the way to do it.

Let me tell you: I see a guy walking into my library carrying an uncased shotgun, my hand will be on the grip of my (concealed) 1911 quicker than you can say "knife". Would I pop the guy? If he made a move which I thought looked dangerous, you betcha.

The danger with this kind of thing is not that someone's going to be fearful -- it's that someone like ME is going to be fearful, and take steps to eliminate a perceived threat.

Oops. Was that the reaction the OC fanatics were looking for?

DM said...

@Kim
"Let me tell you: I see a guy walking into my library carrying an uncased shotgun, my hand will be on the grip of my (concealed) 1911 quicker than you can say "knife". Would I pop the guy? If he made a move which I thought looked dangerous, you betcha."

Ok, keyboard commando, settle down before you get your doughnut crumbs all over your mom's carpet there in the basement.

I've open carried my AR15 into the Michigan state capitol building, along with numerous other Second Amendment activists during a state rally. Plenty of the public was around, including where we sat in the gallery above the lawmakers. Everyone survived, no children went running and screaming, and no clamp down on the RKBA happened afterward.

Your speculation of blood in the streets, instigated by yourself, does not match the reality experienced with peaceable long arm carry.

When speculation does not match reality, which do you choose to believe?

Will said...

DM,
you are comparing apples and oranges, again. The point I and others have been making is that toting around a long gun is considered inappropriate in most urban situations. If it raises the hackles of hardcore gunnie types, then it damn well is a BAD IDEA! We don't care if it is legal, that is not the point. And comparing it to an OC group staging a gathering in a political arena is silly, and a poor debating tactic.

Would I like it to be socially acceptable to wander around with a long gun on my shoulder? Yeah, I could do that when I was a kid, but that was a half-century ago. It would be nice if we could get back to that, but I don't see that happening in the near future. And frightening the horses today is not doing anything positive along that line.

I read that some are saying that it was actually a pistol gripped rifle, and therefore technically a handgun. That's bull. If it is slung from the shoulder, it is a long gun in the mind of the public. You know, if it looks like, walks like, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Save the hairsplitting for courtrooms.