If you’re going to insist on the “OC’ers are the new Rosa Parks”, then you have to break an unjust law to complete the analogy. Open carrying where it’s legal but rare is raising awareness – to fight the unjust law, it needs to be done somewhere OC is illegal, like Chicago or Texas. Start open carrying there to protest the law if you’re going to be using the Civil Rights analogy.
What’s going on in Michigan isn’t civil disobedience, it’s uncivil obedience. It’s perfectly legal and within my rights to fart in a crowded elevator, but that doesn’t mean I insist everyone else like the smell.
22 thoughts on “Quote of the Day”
The library’s TRO against them is amusing and shows that a lack of thought can create opportunities for the other side.
These guys would have better off sticking to going to Starbucks!
I truly hate these guys. Big men with no understanding of their impact on society. For every 2 steps forward we march, idiots like this make us take 1 step back!
The TRO clearly protests against carrying of pistols as well as rifles, to a locale where all carry of firearms is prohibited.
Sounds like civil disobedience to me.
So if I go to your house, and refuse to leave, that’s civil disobedience? It’s just trespassing.
While I’m not defending what they’re doing (it’s shortsighted and counterproductive, even if technically legal), you house is not a public place. The library is, and is bound by the laws that apply (assuming without deciding that they do).
So wait. If someone actually disobeys an unjust gun law, and then turns himself in to police, like a true civil disobedient, will THAT be sufficient Rosa Parkism?
You are capable of better argument that a false argument against public and private property.
Well, the greater argument is that black is an immutable characteristic you can’t change. I can stop carrying a gun if I want to have access to a public accommodation (different than public property).
I feel it is also an irrelevant argument.
Consider: Religion is a mutable characteristic – you can stop being a Catholic or a Protestant or a Muslim. But while that is true, if we – for example – prohibited peopel from wearing headgear in libraries, that would clearly be denying use of public libraries to Muslims, Jews, and some other religious people. But we don’t do it, because despite being a choice, religious choice is a universally-accepted *right* in American society. Indeed religious freedom is at the foundation of America.
It’s not entirely logical, I agree… but would you be willing to support a law that required any public accommodation to allow people toting guns? Keep in mind this would mean restaurants, malls, or really any business that serves the public.
If you do support that, you are at least consistent, but this is in that realm. I can respect your position if you do believe that, but I might have to argue you will need to have your wookie suit trimmed a bit, because that’s a case for more government interference in private relationships.
Sebastian, Thanks for providing the all time worst (or most imaginative) comparison ever: concealed carry which demands that prople like it to farting in the elevator.
I did demand that places of public accommodation either permit carry or provide facilities to maintain security, store patrons weapons securely and conveniently, and take positive steps and responsibility to ensure each individual patron’s security.
Which is why I believe that OC protest as a political tactic is counterproductive at this stage.
Sebastian: I feel that it is reasonable to require that publicly-owned institutions – libraries, state universities, parks – allow firearms to be carried on their grounds.
The government after all *owns* these facilities. And I feel that if we enacted such laws, then it would actually have a very good effect on overall acceptance of firearms over a long-term, especially with state universities and colleges.
It’s not clear to what extent the library system is publicly owned in Michigan. If they are a non-profit institution, technically they aren’t a governmental entity. If they receive tax dollars to support them, then certain the state of Michigan could condition that on allowing firearm, but that’s not the law as it’s currently written.
Here’s an interesting analogy:
Could the library ask you to leave if you go in and start making a rousing political speech?
I’m not sure I agree with the Rosa Parks analogy – she wasn’t the first to refuse to leave her seat, she was the one who made a good public relations face on the movement – a respectable, hard working woman – made a fine figure to rally around to protest an injustice.
I don’t see a guy making a scene in a library by carrying a shotgun falling in the same category. Rosa Parks was good PR, this guy has stiffened resistance, and turned a bunch of folks against OC.
And a counterquestion: could they ask you to leave for wearing an armband or a shirt with a political message on it? I think the courts will have to straighten that one out.
@Sebastian: Yes – as long as their policy is that any loud speech is prohibited on the grounds of disruption to readers. Settled case law – non-viewpoint-centric regulations on speech are permitted.
@Microbalrog: in the case of a library, no. Not as settled case law, but a school cannot ban political messages on clothing – and a school has a more compelling need than a library.
I was referring to that exactly. The power of the state over those institutions where the state acts as a proprietor rather than a sovereign is still limited – by purposes that, in good faith, are relevant to the institution. The state does not have unlimited power to regulate behavior in these locations, even though its power there is more extensive than it is elsewhere.
“Could the library ask you to leave if you go in and start making a rousing political speech?”
Actually, yes. And they would. Poor analogy that.
This opencarry thing has opened up quite a wedge. It’s not so much the difference of opinions, although I am appalled at some kid bringing a shotgun into a public library, the attitudes displayed in the various blogs and forums and the way they talked to fellow gun owners and second amendment supporters shocked me.
If you opencarry folks want to make progress your going to have to show some common sense in the way you act and the way you talk to others.
The whole thing has me reevaluating my thinking about this. This kid carrying a shotgun into a library was just too much for me. If such radical opencarry actions put me off, imagine what it will do to non gun people.
We get more done, and create better impressions, when we depend on the Courts and refuse to act like Black Panthers.
There are a number of regions that open carry will NEVER be accepted. You will never open carry in Chicago or New York city. It’s not going to happen. Chicago is not Arizona.
Were going to have to realize there are realistic limits to where your going to get open carry. If you don’t accept that, then I bet your going to be disappointed.
We fought hard to get concealed carry in all but two states. That’s not too shabby. The public is learning that gunfights are not breaking out on every corner. We need that positive image.
I am fearful that the open carry movement will upset the applecart. Carrying a shotgun into a library will do it. If you don’t understand that……
BTW – politiczed open carry LOST us open carry in CA; as Kansas Scout alluded to above.
Comments are closed.