Narrow Focus

From Arfcom:

I'm not for or against OC, I think it will do more harm than good. I would have much rather seen more favorable CC legislation. Such as, remove pretty much every prohibited place, educate LE that accidental exposure or printing isn't against the law and provide funding for educational PR for CC and the benefits and protections that responsible gun ownership provides.

Why I think OC would do more harm than good.
-Establishments are going to not allow firearms in their business, then people are all going to get bent out of shape that a PRIVATE business is dictating the terms of service, which is kinda funny since most gun people are about personal rights. I will agree that if a business does not allow carry of any type they should be held responsible for your safety, but simply by them saying they don't allow guns that covers that standard, which is a shame.

-Some legislator with a D by his name is going to call for signs to have the weight of law behind them due to people scared by OC'ers. So now a CC carries a gun into a restaurant with a sign and boom armed trespassing.

-People especially at first are going to be open carrying a bunch of non-sense in some nylon holster they got for $5, or they're going to have some kydex that I could steal with two fingers. I don't know why you'd want that stress while you're standing in line at the WaWa. One reason I kinda hope it passes is to laugh at people with their ridiculous carry choices. I can see my FB feed now!:)

-OC'ers are going to get mad when they're detained by LE because someone called in and said theres a guy walking around with a gun looking shady. An active shooter, your'e to far away to do anything, you're fleeing with your family, then you get held at gun point which slows LE response to the real bad guy and puts you and your family in more danger. OC cops not in uniform get shot, a lot of LE not in uniform but working don't even OC.

-OC deters crime, uh I don't think so. The act of good guys stopping bad guys deters crime. John wants to rob WaWa, John is a felon, John has warrants, John doesn't want to go to jail. John sees you OCing, John either waits for you to leave, shoots you in the head or points his gun at you and takes your gun, then a CC'er saves you, haha:) Oh wait I'm sure every OC'er is a weapons retention ninja.

-People that choose to OC should IMO be in an extremely high level of alertness, while around crowds, Which is very tiring, I don't know why you'd want to stress yourself out like that.

These are just my opinions, again I don't really care one way or the other. I would much rather CC allowed more places, and CC encouraged by Gov. I do like the aspect of open carry promoting our rights which I'm all for, I just know we'll be saying "this is why we can't have nice things" in the future and I'm don't want OC to have a negative impact in the long term.

This screed is why I am really growing to hate dealing with gunnies.

Private establishments should have the right to tell anyone they don't want their money.  And I should be free to not spend it there.  Let them put up their signs to tell me they don't want my business and we'll see how it goes for them.  Panera already sees no business from me.

Technically the signs already have the force of law, the trespassing law.  It would just change whether they have to inform you before calling the cops in.

People are already conceal carrying in ridiculously poor holsters (or not).  There's more than a couple "lost gun" stories that stem from it.  The main reason I don't think that this point is an issue is because it's not an issue in any of the states that allow open carry.  It's another "might happen" that doesn't happen, right up there with "blood in the streets".

Then learn the cops how this works!  The police are supposed to be operating in our world, we're not supposed to be existing in theirs.  Any cop who feels they need to force the citizens to exist in their paradigm shouldn't work for government in any capacity.  It's why I want it to be a lot easier to fire cops.  We've a role reversal thing going on about who's supposed to be in charge of things with regards to law-enforcement/citizen that needs to get unfucked and it's wholly independent of any single law, but is fed from parts of many laws.

The police are already too damn trigger happy for my comfort level and the justifications for spraying and praying are entirely too specious.  Remember what I said about role reversal?  A cop draws down on me, I am required to suffer the assault of The State on my person.  I draw down on a cop, he can open up on me with impunity because "officer safety" is paramount.  This is a broken relationship between citizen and state.  Notice that the reason for drawing has been omitted?  Because it doesn't matter.  The police don't have to justify drawing on me because there's never any liability to doing so; likewise there's never any legally allowed justification for a citizen to draw on a cop.  If the situation wasn't broken the reasons for drawing and the penalties for doing it in error would be identical to both parties, with a bias against the police because a free society seeks to hobble government rather than enable it.  We're living in a world where society is expected to work for the cops, rather than the cops working for society; which is odd because without society there's no cops and no need for them.  Properly the police are members of the same society that they serve, with no more rights or privileges than anyone else.  No more power either, they're merely the part of society who get paid to do the peace enforcement job and are expected to do it when they'd rather not.  Just like I can neglect the lawn here at home, but expect someone I hired to cut the grass to do it regularly.

The issue of carry really boils down to whether the state was ever properly granted the power to say one way or another.  Because we're a shitty electorate and have grossly neglected our responsibilities to inform ourselves we let The State assume powers it was not granted by the constitutions that were supposed to narrowly define the role of government and widely defend the liberties and freedoms of the citizenry.

We've allowed the idea that government can do anything unless specifically forbidden by a judge years after a law was enacted be the limitation on State power.

We've forgotten that our constitutions were written as a short list of "these things and nothing more".  How do I know I have a right to drive a car?  Because no power at all was granted to the government to determine how I might travel about.  How do I know I have a right to carry a gun, openly or concealed?  Because not only was no power granted by the constitution, such power is specifically forbade.  How do I know I've interpreted this correctly?  Because there are additional prohibitions written into the documents reminding everyone to not assume powers not listed or limit rights only to those specifically mentioned.

The matter at hand is much bigger than any single issue, and we're getting so focused on the trees we're forgetting there's a forest.