No. No we do not have to scare the hell out of everyone in Aurora by allowing people to bait police when they flaunt loaded shotguns, rifles, assault weapons, pistols and Saturday night specials on streets all over town.
Two weeks ago, an 18-year-old man was stopped by police after motorists called dispatchers to report that he was walking along East Iliff Avenue with a shotgun strapped to his back. The teenager was part of a growing “open carry” movement where activists carry all kinds of loaded firearms to all kinds of public places, because they can. In this case, like so many others, the teenager videotaped the inevitable run-in with police and then posted the encounter online. Gun-rights activists like this bait cops all over the country every day. The incidents have become so prevalent that police associations are devising protocols for approaching people who shamelessly try to get attention by carrying loaded guns for no good reason.
That’s the point of these activists and their supporters. You don’t have to have a good reason or any reason at all to carry around even legalized military assault weapons.
Even many Second Amendment rights proponents agree the fad is dangerous and irresponsible. And proponents of sensible gun restrictions?
“We support the Second Amendment, but that does not mean it is acceptable to parade around in public with a loaded weapon. This man was trying to make a political statement, but Colorado moms don’t want armed individuals playing politics with our children’s safety, particularly in a community like Aurora,” said Jennifer Hope, of the Colorado chapter of the gun-control advocacy group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, according to a story in this edition of the Aurora Sentinel.
It would seem simple enough for Aurora lawmakers to adopt the same, constitutional, open-carry ban that Denver lives under. The problem is the straw-man argument about legally transporting guns among jurisdictions. Local open carry proponents say it’s unfair to those carrying their gun legally on their waist in a community like Centennial to violate a law just because they unknowingly crossed a city border.
Red herring. Laws can either accommodate people legally carrying weapons inside cars, or the practice itself becomes a positive defense. In such a case that this would even be an issue, an Aurora police officer could make the judgment as whether to advise a violator of the law or write a ticket.
The core argument is that it’s dangerous and a waste of police time to allow people to openly carry loaded guns in public places. The liability police, and ultimately taxpayers, would face in ignoring people flaunting shotguns is unthinkable. This isn’t Mayberry. Police have a responsibility to investigate every episode of someone carrying a gun in public, even if it’s the same person out for their daily tease. Anything less is unthinkable. So, as these incidents increase in frequency, more and more police time will be spent on accommodating this dangerous fad.
Ideally, a state law regulating open carry would take care of the problem, but in this political environment, that’s not going to happen. This is a state where gun-rights bullies manipulate political reality to get their way. Instead, it’s time for Aurora lawmakers to step up and do the right thing before the worst possible thing happens, and everyone knows that eventually it will.
this is yellow journalism
Bright yellow and wet, running down the legs of terrified leftists.
Well Dave, since you are the only paper in Aurora, quit writing about it and you won’t wet your pants, and also you won’t give them publicity. They are legal, and I lived here when that would not have created a problem. What happened that you get so peeved at something we older folks grew up with. Just because a lot of folks moved here from the crowded cities where this happened, we now have a crowded city where this happens. Really improved it for us old-timers. But somehow you seem the most in dread. Was your youth that wild, as you seem to hint at times. Just asking?
If baiting the police is a bad thing, wouldn’t the police taking the bait be worse?
There needs to be 100, 1000 people openly carrying firearms of all types (legally) around Aurora. No two should be in sight of the others. Make the police waste time with legal activity long enough (and sue the hell out of them) and they will learn to follow the laws.
I support open carry as long as you are a member of the well-regulated militia (National Guard).
The National Guard is not the militia.
I support banning the most dangerous segment of our population, 30% of the population, not white, commits 87% of all violent crimes, and votes predominantly democrat.
So banning democrats would indeed be a smart decision!
Nobody gives a shiot what you support.
Read the Supreme court ruling in Heller v. D.C. whereby the justices thoroughly debunked the “militia” argument. They ruled the RKBA is a fundamental, INDIVIDUAL civil right not related to service in the militia.
Do follow up research by then reading the Supreme Court Ruling in McDonald v. Chicago whereby the 2nd Amendment was applied/incorporated against the states just like the First, Fourth, Fifth and other INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS amendments.
Your ignorance is showing for all to see.
You should read it too. The opinion was the first time the SCOTUS declared the 2nd Amendment an individual right in over 200 years. It also has nothing to do with open carry or concealed carry. The ruling confirmed only possession in defense of home.
Nice way to misrepresent things. In 1939, the Court in U.S. v. Miller presumed that the defendant (Miller) had a right to keep and bear arms, just not the sawed-off shotgun at issue.
The reason the Court didn’t address it in 200 years is that it never was an issue until progressives erected the “collective right” straw man in the early 20th Century.
And, in D.C. v. Heller the Court recognized keeping handguns in the home for self-defense as one of a plurality of lawful uses. It was specifically addressed to guns in the home because that was the narrow issue before it.
Item 1 in the holding is, “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.” (emphasis mine)
If you can understand English, then you can’t deny that Scalia did not limit the right to the home.
Nice way to misrepresent the issue. Re-read Miller. Miller lost (who was already dead) as a saw off shotgun had no military basis.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
Again your ignorance of how our courts operate in relation to constitutional issues is apparent.
The court has not defined the right fully yet.
BUT, I contend, it is NOT THE COURT’S PLACE!
It’s the PEOPLE’S place to determine the scope of their rights.
And they may need to use the 2A, in the final analysis, to cement their definition.
You should study more regarding studying legal opinions etc. Check out The Volokh Conspiracy website and other legal resources.
For one example, when the justices state, “… restrictions on carrying arms in place such as schools, hospitals, etc. are “presumptively constitutional” it ALSO MEANS they’re ‘presumptively UNconstitutional’. It’s called a prenumbra and there are many such in both the Heller and the McDonald SC opinions regarding Second Amendment, and thus other incorporated/applied, rights.
The Second Amendment does NOT say anything about open or concealed carry – I agree. Therefore, it means we the people get to decide which is the best way to exercise our fundamental, civil right to BEAR and KEEP arms ready for immediate employ in the event of a spontaneous confrontation. It goes on to state clearly that the State/Government etc. SHALL NOT INFRINGE on such right in ANY way. The courts are trying their hardfest to convince us they control that choice but they have absolutely ZERO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION for their position.
The opinion ONLY addressed possession “in the home” because that was the crux of this particular case and courts seldom expand cases outside their original purview.
Since those decisions we’ve had several lower courts rule in opposition to each other which pretty much guarantees the issue will end back up at the SC.
That’s the way our corrupt system currently works even though it’s antithetical to the founding principles of the country.
I am a member of the well-regulated militia, as is nearly every other adult. Including you. You might want to look up The Militia Act of 1903.
Yeah, until that National Guard is used to suppress activity you might support (such as at Kent State). And it doesn’t take what’s going on in Ferguson to demonstrate the fallacy of advocating that only government agencies should be armed to the teeth, as the web is full of stories of police officers escalating confrontations beyond reason and killing or harming innocent people.
Increasingly powerful regulation sounds awesome until you become the target.
“Increasingly powerful regulation sounds awesome until you become the target.”
It couldn’t be more succinct. Great post.
you make no sense. standing armies don’t need laws giving them the right to carry arms. stupid comment
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” – George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention, 1788
More mindless ranting by a clueless reporter about nonexistent assault rifles. When are these scribes ever going to write something intelligent instead of mindless wild eyed hysterical ranting?
Does anyone care that they can stop citizens doing lawful things but can’t stop illegal aliens, who are doing illegal things by virtue of being here…at a minimum
“legalized military assault weapons.” Huh. The AR-15 is not a military rifle. It is also not an assault rifle. And right now in Ferguson MO huncreds of law-abiding citizens are protecting their stores and their livelilood but carrying loaded weapons in front of those stores to ward off a violent mob. Or would yoou prefer to have their assets looted and burned to the ground to make some ” poltical statement”?
Denver’s Open Carry Ban is NOT constitutional regardless of how the corrupt liberal pos judges in Denver “rule.”
Most judges in this country deserve to be drug from their offices and hung,
(Bagdasarian v. USA)
Since this was published by the Aurora Sentinel without a writers name or a confirmation of editorial backing I assume this was a puff piece that was purposely published to inflame. It was published as an opinion piece. Just exactly who’s opinion is this? I can not pin the Aurora Sentinel for this, however, I can state one thing:
“This is a state where gun-rights bullies manipulate political reality to get their way.”
Who are the bullies?
Liberals and Democrats alike have bullied, twisted, and conspired to
inflate and incite emotion to their thinking.
I have yet to see or hear the fore mentioned groups use fact, law, or
logical thinking to present a topic that needs to be addressed. On Constitutional matters the words of the document are ignored with, “It’s a living document and should be revised tomeet the times”
Horse Hockey!
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is our forefather’s
gift to us. It is the guide that makes this country what it is today. If we do not use the spirit and the literal meaning in concert with each other we are nothing more than the followers of a dictatorship.
You recognize the point correctly, you just don’t agree with it.
The point is that you will just have to get used to people carrying openly whether you approve of it or not, and the only way to get people used to it is immersion.
That’s what rights are – protected even if a majority disapproves.
My dad always thought me “don’t play with guns, they are not toys”. I take my guns very seriously by properly using, handling, transporting and storing them. It sounds to me like some folks in this blog did not have a wise father to teach them the seriousness of guns.
Although I hate Dave’s extremist views and vitriol rants, I do agree that police have better things to do than deal with these open carry losers.
Interesting article. I’m encouraged by most of the comments below. First, the author of this piece (or the entire Aurora Sentinel?) needs to check out https://www.assaultweapon.info/ and educate themselves before throwing around buzz words that reveal an obvious bias. Second, the number of individuals who engage in the questionable practice of sensationalizing open carry for publicity reasons is most likely much smaller than the number who open carry for reasons not attached to publicity stunts. I don’t have numbers, I don’t know if anyone does.
The author(s) are advocating a ban that affects everyone in the entire state based on the actions of a few (who, mind you, have neither broken the law nor gone on a rampage when confronted), which is a poor way to legislate, let alone the idea of using emotion and feeling as an indicator for the merit of law. This leads the way into pre-emptive criminalisation, a dangerous precedent where people would be criminally punished not for doing wrong, but instead merely for someone else thinking that they possibly might do something wrong in the future. The authors also seemingly have no problem with collateral damage that would wreak havok for citizens with no criminal intent. People should not be presumed guilty and have to sort it out in the courts or be at the mercy of a police officer to interpret the law based on their opinion.
If I remember correctly, from being present at the state capitol on Mar 5, 2013 to hear arguments about HB-1224, HB-1229, etc., it wasn’t ‘gun-rights bullies’ manipulating public reality, it was quite the contrary. This is not journalism. This is whining – that really isn’t even justified. Those 2013 laws passed. Aren’t we so much safer now?
The last comment the article makes is about Aurora ‘stepping up’ before the worst happens. ?? The worst thing already did happen and it had nothing to do with open carry law. Let’s instead have the authors of the Aurora Sentinel back up their ridiculous statement by indeed actually explaining how Aurora ‘stepping up’ would prevent a mass shooting. I’m all ears.
As noted in a comment below, this article has particularly bad timing, what with average law-abiding citizens trying to protect their livelihoods and businesses from criminal looting by, you guessed it, open carrying firearms in Ferguson, MO.
It won’t be long that armed terrorist organizations like the KKK will be roaming the streets of our nation with impunity.
I’ll bet you moved to Colorado from California!
“Red herring. Laws can either accommodate people legally carrying weapons inside cars, or the practice itself becomes a positive defense. ”
That’s the point, we should not be placed in the position of defending something that is our right. The word “bear” is in the second amendment. When the wise men came to Jesus “bearing” gifts. They did not ask Jesus to go to their houses to pick up the gifts at their homes. They “carried” those gifts to him and they did so by carrying them openly and publicly.