By Shaun Kranish, Founder of ICarry.org and KeepAndBear.org
There has been, and remains, a lot of criticism about open carry. While some of the criticism is valid, this article will explain why, overall, those opposed to the open carry of firearms by Citizens in public are in error. I have been an open carry advocate since 2005 and have frequently open carried over the past 2 decades, often daily. I must give a shout out to OpenCarry.org for its influence on me back in those early years.
Concealed carry has the virtue of crime deterrence since criminals do not know who is and who is not carrying. This is very valuable to society, and one of a few reasons why concealed carry is a right that Citizens have that must always be respected by law. However, open carry also deters criminality. Concealed carry also gives defenders the element of surprise, which can be a huge benefit in a life-threatening conflict. Lastly, concealed carry prevents one from being a target of disarmament, an avoidable and mitigatable remote risk. These are three virtues of concealed carry, but now let’s discuss the Second Amendment’s meaning, open carry case law, and many more of the virtues attributable only to open carry.
The Second Amendment is about open carry, not concealed carry
Fact: The 2nd Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights to also mention a duty and responsibility. This is the duty to have and be a well regulated Militia. The Militia is the Citizenry – the People – at arms. The Militia gathers, or musters, and practices and drills. They do so with arms – battle rifles – openly. While the 2nd Amendment certainly helps with private or individual self-defense on the street, its focus is upon keeping the country safe from exterior and interior threats to our free way of life.
The Second Amendment states that a well regulated Militia is “necessary to the security of a free State.” They didn’t use: preferred, advised, beneficial, ideal, or any other ninny word. They really meant that it is necessary. It is not about concealed carry, nor the rights of having in the home and carrying sometimes. Those rights are inseparable from the duty and responsibility that is necessary for a free state. In order to have the Militia, open carry must be sacrosanct. There should not be a “man with a gun” call or any harassment or detainment. Free state depends on well regulated militia which depends on both open carry being inviolable and people actually living up to the necessity of being the Militia and doing it.
While the 2A covers concealed carry, and thankfully so for the three virtues mentioned above, it’s no more about concealed carry than it is about hunting or sport shooting. Courts would love (and have so done!) to say such things, but it is a lie. The 2A’s primary purpose is to ensure the People have the ultimate power to render fruitless any attempts of a tyrant to enslave them. Now we will mention some of the many, many virtues of open carry.
The landmark Heller Supreme Court decision highlighted open carry case law from around the country
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose pronounced in the prefatory clause…Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.Those who believe that the Second Amendment preserves only a militia-centered right place great reliance on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s 1840 decision in Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154. The case does not stand for that broad proposition; in fact, the case does not mention the word “militia” at all, except in its quoting of the Second Amendment. Aymette held that the state constitutional guarantee of the right to “bear” arms did not prohibit the banning of concealed weapons. The opinion first recognized that both the state right and the federal right were descendents of the 1689 English right, but (erroneously, and contrary to virtually all other authorities) read that right to refer only to “protect[ion of] the public liberty” and “keep[ing] in awe those in power,” id., at 158. The court then adopted a sort of middle position, whereby citizens were permitted to carry arms openly, unconnected with any service in a formal militia, but were given the right to use them only for the military purpose of banding together to oppose tyranny. This odd reading of the right is, to be sure, not the one we adopt—but it is not petitioners’ reading either. More importantly, seven years earlier the Tennessee Supreme Court had treated the state constitutional provision as conferring a right “of all the free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence,” Simpson, 5 Yer., at 360; and 21 years later the court held that the “keep” portion of the state constitutional right included the right to personal self-defense: “[T]he right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary purposes, and in all the ordinary modes usual in the country, and to which arms are adapted, limited by the duties of a good citizen in times of peace.” Andrews, 50 Tenn., at 178; see also ibid. (equating state provision with Second Amendment).Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid. See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
Open carry may be the silver bullet for national constitution carry
Open carry is speech through expression – a political message – and extremely efficient mass-communication
When one is open carrying in everyday life in public, political messages are being transmitted and received. Messages such as “Self-reliance is valuable,” and “I know I must protect myself,” “I know making a phone call and waiting on strangers to come isn’t realistic,” “I can do this, so can you,” “I am enjoying freedom and personal responsibility,” “I am contributing to the collective need for security, instead of being a burden on others,” “I value our freedoms,” “My actions aren’t determined merely by the feelings of others,” “This is a safe and valuable tool that I carry,” and many more are transmitted without the need for speech. Dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people in a day can receive some of these messages while the messenger just goes about his or her everyday life, requiring no extra time or effort on the part of the messenger.
Open carry says, “anyone can do this in a free society, not just specialized government agents.” It is a powerful message that gets people thinking deeply on a subconscious level, and sometimes even on a conscious level as well. It says, “guns are valuable, and we are fortunate we can have and carry them.” It also reminds people of their mortality, their vulnerability, and their need to protect themselves. These ideas help people overcome dependence on the state and the tendency to shirk responsibility.
Open carry reconditions the public which has been subjected to anti-gun propaganda for decades
Sitcoms speak badly about gun ownership and portray gun owners as foolish, guilty, and contributing to danger in society. Other TV shows and series portray a Citizen with a gun as being clumsy and incompetent and accidentally shooting themselves or another person or merely allowing a criminal to easily take away their gun without them firing it. State agents are usually portrayed as heroic and extremely competent, highly-trained, law-abiding, and otherwise excessively noble.
The public has been slyly made to think of gun ownership as a liability and detriment and danger to society through the electronic screen. It is portrayed as a net-negative, a problem. This is why, at times, some polls show the general population in support of so-called “reasonable” gun restrictions. Open carry obliterates these beliefs. It shows that Citizens do have and do carry guns regularly in public, and yet nothing bad happens.
Open carry helps people overcome their conditioned fear of guns – where reason and logic fail miserably
Open carry teaches children responsibility and action
Speaking of emotion and irrationality, children face further challenges of applying reason to a situation. You can tell a child, or even an adult for that matter, but showing is much more effective. When children see open carry, they form a positive or at least neutral view of firearms. This stays with them and makes it much harder for propaganda and other conditioning to take place.
There is no better time than as a child to learn that life is precious, and that we are all vulnerable and need protecting. We need protecting here and now when needed, not five or ten or fifteen or more minutes away. It is best that we provide for our own protection and members of society assist one another as much as possible everywhere.
Open carry has a crime deterrent effect
Guns become renormalized – everyday, unremarkable, and even unnoticed as was always the case prior to racist slavery-based gun control in the USA
The debate on guns will be over when guns are normal again. This is when we see them all the time – so much so that they hardly go noticed. Instead of being looked upon by some as a liability and worse (many people attribute supernatural powers such as evil to them), with open carry guns can become just an unremarkable part of life.
When gun ownership comes back out of the closet, and more people opt to exercise the crucial right of open carry, gun owners cement the right into place. The debate on guns ends and life goes on. Before the racist Jim Crow laws, and for whites even a long while after, guns were carried here and there and everywhere. Women didn’t don red shirts and demand men get rid of their guns. Only the slave-masters, the democrats, wanted to disarm their slaves. Now the would-be slave-master democrats and “rinos” wish to disarm and enslave everyone but law enforcement, who would act as their slave-handlers.
Open carry in today’s age means freedom for all, regardless of skin color. Open carry means equality and no more slavery. That’s why most politicians hate open carry so much. Open carry to politicians is like a cross-shaped UV bulb dipped in garlic and colloidal silver to a vampire.
Open carry is the epitome of freedom – public display of mastery of tyranny
Those who can carry arms openly are the masters of their own destiny. They can still be attacked, but they have a great ability to defend. They cannot be attacked with as much confidence as someone who is unarmed. Open carry shows a high level of self-respect and independence. Open carry shows tyrants that We the People – the Citizens – are prepared and willing to fight to preserve our freedoms.
Open carry is a constant reminder for would-be tyrants of the potential dangers of their actions
Power and corruption are proportional. Just in recent years we have seen free speech in “the west” nearly annihilated. The disarmed populations of “developed” western countries have accepted concession after concession after concession. And why wouldn’t they? What else can they do other than accept it? While they could physically overpower their governments, the loss of Citizen life in doing so would be far greater than how that would unfold in the USA.
When open carry is not exercised, it is outlawed. Police will harass and detain, and eventually the practice will be outlawed since it is too “scary” for people. Considering most of the world does not enjoy their universal human right to arms, there is a great pressure upon the United States to enact laws that mirror other countries.
Without the reminder that the population is armed, all the time, everywhere, politicians will follow the same path as most every other country has. The world is reliant upon the United States to show the way and lead when it comes to the freedom to carry guns. If this freedom in the USA fails, the world falls into darkness.
Open carry heightens awareness even more than concealed.
Many who conceal carry notice they maintain, in general, a higher state of alertness when carrying vs. when not carrying. This is because of the awesome responsibility that comes with carrying such a powerful weapon. Open carry does the same thing, but to an even much greater extent.
The Militia is not very well organized nor well regulated as it should be, but open carry paves the way
There are supposed to be Militia officers, elected by the People, and an organized force of the greater population. This is according to the US Constitution and federal law. We do not have this, and hence, arguably, do not have a free state. Open carry paves the way for us to do what we are supposed to do and ensure proper constitutional Militia is organized and trains regularly.
This is a very unfamiliar concept, even to yours truly, but remains a reality in the design of our great country. The author must reiterate: the Militia is necessary, as the 2nd Amendment states. So we must determine how to have and organize it, as was the original intent. 2nd Amendment supporters too often want to completely ignore the duty/responsibility part – the first part – and just move right onto the enjoyable freedoms part. That’s not how life works.
Second Amendment butters are people who say “I support the 2nd Amendment, but…” Too many gun owners must now realize that’s them if they don’t support the militia duty part. While I don’t have all the answers on how a militia works and should be organized, I do know that having national and state guard units does not cut it. It’s supposed to be made up of everyone – to ensure no one can go crazy with power. A large number of the general public should be, at the very least, rotating in and out of militia duty regularly.
Open carry gets people thinking of their vulnerability and mortality, and this is not a bad thing!
Life is fragile and finite. That’s one of the reasons it’s so special. While a reminder of this can be unwelcome at times, it can be useful to help us make the most of each moment. Life is too short to waste and not live to the fullest. There are many ways to waste time and life, and one of them is using slow or ineffective methods to advance freedom.
Open carry is the most efficient and fastest way to restore gun rights and personally, individually, enjoy liberty
The author doesn’t wish gun rights to be his life’s work. The author wishes the work to be a small portion of his life – the smaller the better. The author sees it as a problem that should be solved as quickly as possible. The desire is to live free and ensure future generations may as well. Not knowing when his time is up, the author shall enjoy the freedom now and suffer undue consequences should they come. One cannot control others, and can on good days just manage oneself, but one can do one’s part to do what is right. One is only held to account for one’s own actions, not the reactions of others. One is also held to account for one’s inactions as much as actions.
Gun rights in the USA has been very slow moving. Ever-present is the pressure from the rest of the world, huge foundations, billionaires, globalists, world governmental organizations, “non-governmental organizations,” the “intelligence” community, and other deep state actors, and of course the “useful idiots” who know not the consequences of the policies they help advocate.
Open carry, particularly in groups, and particularly in the name of freedom, the 2nd Amendment, while doing charity work, is more effective than any other action gun owners can take. Daily individual open carry is also effective for the reasons above, and one will never know what enormous impact one may have from simply doing it on a regular basis.
Open carry sparks conversations
Concealed carry sparks no conversations, but open carry sparks many. You will encounter curious people, supportive people, gearheads, and people who disagree. You will be able to engage in conversations, should you so choose, that would not otherwise take place. You can help spread the brushfires of liberty. You can help explain about how responsibility and freedom are tired together. It opens the doors for realizations and lightbulbs going off that otherwise would remain unlit.
Open carry inspires the heart and stimulates the mind
Freedom is inspiration in nature. It uplifts, enlivens, refreshes, intrigues, and is as intrinsic to life as breathing. In a time of mass psychosis, a delusional clinging to the state for guidance and deliverance from endless promulgated perceived threats, you can be a light in the darkness.
Seeing a normal, everyday, nicely-dressed and well-behaved Citizen openly carrying is like a gentle but profound shake out of a slumber for many. It elicits much thought on both the subconscious and conscious levels in so many people. As stated before they are reminded of their vulnerability, responsibility, shown the light of self-reliance, invigorated by realizing they could do the same, and this ultimately leads to the breakdown of the dependency-delusions they hold.
Closing and challenge
And when it comes to shattering delusions, the delusion that concealed carry is the 2nd Amendment is way past due. Concealed carry is better than carrying nothing, but open carry is infinitely superior for all of the reasons above. We still need people to conceal, and people always will. That is a wonderful and important piece of the puzzle, but it is a small piece.
The largest section of the puzzle involves open carry and the Citizen Militia. You can tell yourself that concealed is safer and more tactical, and in some ways it is. If you read this article, you should no longer be able to lie to yourself that open carry is foolish, if you are one who formerly held such notion based solely upon open carry’s tactical disadvantage. Now you should see the value and benefits of open carry. While there is a risk to doing it, and it requires greater vigilance, there is a greater risk to not doing it. That risk is the human right to arms being methodically infringed as has been the absolutely undeniable pattern for decades worldwide.
If open carry is not in our culture, we will lose. When there is a new court and/or some bad rulings, the gun control laws will fall upon American gun owners like an avalanche. A public mass shooting or two, perhaps committed by government for the purpose of disarmament or perhaps just heavily utilized, will precipitate registrations, bans, and confiscation as has been the case all over the world. Concealed carry won’t stop this train, but open carry including rifles in public can.
So we ask for your help in realizing this sacred and honorable duty. Open carry wins the long game – the culture war. That is our task, lest we surrender to live as slaves under a bureaucratic ruling class and their armed minions who, indeed, open carry.
This article may be freely distributed, in its entirety, with attribution to author as follows: “Shaun Kranish, Founder of KeepAndBear.org” Online use must include a link to https://www.KeepAndBear.org. This article will soon be followed by an article on recommendations for those who would courageously try open carry. The author invites debate with who opposes the practice of open carry.
