I’ve been amused by the recent media reaction to citizens openly carrying firearms in states that still respect our constitutional right to do so.  The vast majority of media folks are flaming liberals, so it’s really no surprise.  Still, it’s odd that anyone in America would recoil from the mere presence of guns.  I am probably in the minority when it comes to my view of the Second Amendment because I see it much more broadly than the Supreme Court recently indicated in District of Columbia v. Heller, a decision handed down last summer (full text HERE).  In that landmark case, the Court said:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it

connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

That essentially settles the basic argument for now.  There are, however, many other ancillary arguments that remain unsettled.  The left in America continually seeks to limit gun rights whatever the Supreme Court rules.  As with the rest of our Constitution, we need to return to original intent to insure the freedoms inherent in our republic.

I am an unrepentant believer in the open carry of firearms.  Any citizen who has not been convicted of a violent felony and is mentally stable should have the right to openly carry a weapon without permission from local law enforcement.  The Second Amendment does not mandate prior permission from the government.  Varying state laws in some cases severely restrict that right.  Other states have laws in place that effectively negate open carry without expressly doing so.  My state of Ohio, for example, permits open carry except in vehicles.  I suppose that’s fine if one walks everywhere, but otherwise it is a loophole that contravenes the original law itself.  We as American citizens have the right of self defense, and we should be able to exercise that right openly and without fear of harassment from police.  The only reasonable restriction on open carry is banning them in establishments that serve alcohol or in government buildings, for obvious reasons.  Many believe that schools and churches should also be included, but far too often we’ve seen citizens attacked in those places without recourse.  Homicidal maniacs pick these places to launch their attacks because they know that no one will be armed.  How many fewer people would have died if someone present had been armed and ready to end such an attack?  An armed society would see far less crime, especially armed robberies and sexual assaults.  Despite liberal beliefs to the contrary, guns do not cause crime and in fact in many cases would prevent it. 

I completely and utterly reject the concept of concealed carry permits.  Concealed carry is nothing less than concealed registration.  It is merely another way for the government to compile lists of gun owners, another idea that clearly violates our Constitution.  As mentioned above, Ohio requires a concealed carry permit to have a loaded weapon in a vehicle.  This is a sneaky legal maneuver that makes open carry impractical.  The Second Amendment does not contain the phrase “with licensing and registration”.  Why should any citizen need the permission of the local sheriff to exercise a right guaranteed under the federal constitution?  It strikes me as patently absurd and thoroughly unconstitutional.  Ohio requires a training course for the concealed carry permit.  Pardon me, Mr. Policeman, but as an eight year veteran of the United States Army, I do not need any further training and dare to say that I am far more proficient and far more accurate in the use of firearms than most members of law enforcement.  I am reminded of the February 19, 1997, shootout between the two Kehoe brothers and Wilmington, Ohio, police officers (see video below).  Numerous rounds were fired at a range of less than ten feet and no one was hit.  Less glaring examples occur on a regular basis.  Obviously there are those who may feel the need for training, but it should not be required for military veterans.  Concealed carry permits are registration in disguise and clearly not within the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Prior to the DC v. Heller ruling, the continual march towards restricting individual gun rights had been steadily progressing.  Each year we see further efforts to eviscerate Second Amendment rights by imposing more and more restrictions.  The groups and individuals that support these measures are simply not comfortable with a basic American right.  Many of them do believe that guns cause crimes, which is like saying flies cause garbage or that spoons make you fat.  A gun is merely a tool.  It is the intent of the user that matters.  I have owned firearms for my entire adult life.  I have never had to brandish one, much less use it, and I hope I never do.  Should the day come, however, when my life or the safety of my family is in jeopardy, I certainly will want a gun for defense.  Placing Draconian restrictions on gun ownership only makes the outlaw more powerful.  Law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right of self defense, and that certainly cannot be accomplished with a stick.  Whatever controls are enacted, the criminals will not adhere to them.  Those who follow them are placed at risk.

It was strange to hear the recent reaction from the media to recent occurrences where citizens legally carried firearms to public protests.  One would have thought these individuals were firing rounds into the air or perhaps were armed with nuclear missiles.  The liberals doing the reporting displayed their unfamiliarity with firearms especially when attempting to describe the weapons themselves.  Apparently they have not been around guns and are extremely uncomfortable in their presence.  To their way of thinking, an armed citizen simply must be up to no good and is dangerous.  They see an implied threat in the exercising of a guaranteed right.  The unfortunate part is that their reactions sensationalize the story and substantiate a wholly unnecessary attitude.  It’s really quite silly and a bit cowardly to my eyes.

Individual gun ownership has been an essential freedom in America since its inception.  Our Founders saw it as important enough to be clearly included in the Bill of Rights.  Those who are opposed are craven and would subject the citizenry to attack without defense.  In closing, I’ll turn it over to three great Americans:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."  Thomas Jefferson

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference . . ." - George Washington

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!"  – President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.