Open carry is materially different from concealed carry. It’s often designed to be menacing, to intimidate the public and public officials. And after the debates around Rittenhouse, it’s time to rethink open carry, as a matter of ethics and law. https://t.co/2daiagOyJI
— David French (@DavidAFrench) November 16, 2021
Author, attorney, and Iraq veteran David French believes it’s time to “rethink open carry, as a matter of ethics and law.”
In a post on The Dispatch, French makes the case that too often those exercising their right to keep and bear arms openly do so in a manner that is intentionally intimidating to others.
“Yet it’s a mistake to believe that open carry is always tied to out-of-control unrest,” writes French, referencing the Kenosha shooting involving Kyle Rittenhouse. “It’s become part and parcel of all too many protests, including anti-lockdown protests and election protests, even at public officials’ homes.”
“There is no credible argument that this form of open carry is ‘self-defense.’ It’s intentional intimidation.”
French believes that the government can and should “tightly restrict open carry.”
I don’t want to call into question French’s 2A bona fides, as he owns an AR, is a licensed concealed carrier, and staunchly supports one’s natural right to self-defense but does he recognize that his argument for essentially banning open carry mirrors that of Everytown for Gun Safety?
In a “fact sheet” called, “More Than Brawlers: The Proud Boys and Armed Extremism” published in July, the Bloomberg-funded organization stated that a “straightforward way to curb armed intimidation by extremist groups” is to “restrict the open display of firearms, especially during protests or at other public places.”
“Open carry is a threat to public safety and armed extremism demonstrates the folly of open carry laws,” they continued.
SEE ALSO: Kimber’s Expanding their Rapide Series with New Full-Size and Micro Models
Notice the repeated use of the word “intimidation” both from French and from Everytown. The conceit is that anytime a gun is displayed in public it has the potential to frighten people, which cannot stand because apparently one’s “right” to not feel intimidated trumps one’s right to exercise a fundamental right.
French even strongly asserts this, “…I completely reject the notion that I have a right to intimidate my fellow citizens. I don’t have a right to use my weapons to make them afraid.”
The problem with this way of reasoning is that it subordinates the right itself to the emotional response it creates in a select few. The Left is attacking free speech along the same lines in that they argue one’s right to not be offended trumps one’s right to speak freely (see video below).
This is a very dangerous precedent to set for obvious reasons. Because there’s no getting around the fact that in a free society someone will always feel intimidated and someone will always be offended.
French and Everytown would have us believe that the solution is to make society less free, to broadly curtail fundamental rights to make people feel safer. But in doing this it actually has the opposite effect in that it makes people increasingly soft over time, which makes people more easily triggered, which, in turn, necessitates more restrictions on fundamental rights from the Nanny State.
The truth is if you feel threatened by someone else carrying a firearm in a lawful manner, that’s a you problem, not a problem with the law. You need to ask yourself why you’re scared. What you may find is that you’re scared because you’re not prepared to deal with physical violence, and that you’ve shirked your responsibility to be capably armed, to muster, what Jordan Peterson calls, “self-protective territorial responses.”
“The forces of tyranny expand inexorably to fill the space made available for their existence. People who refuse to muster appropriately self-protective territorial responses are laid open to exploitation as much as those who genuinely can’t stand up for their own rights because of a more essential inability or a true imbalance in power,” wrote Peterson in his book “12 Rules for Life.”
The way to become less fearful is to become more capable in the face of danger. Learn the basics of self-defense, learn how to use a firearm, learn to carry one responsibly. Personal agency, via exercising one’s right to keep and bear arms, is the best way to alleviate one’s fear of them. Anything else is a poor substitute — or worse, and in the case of calls for more gun control, an attack on individual sovereignty and liberty.
“Absolute nonsense. Show me anything that indicates that more peiple (sic) armed makes anyone safer. Idiotic.” Dano
Well, Dano, let’s see…a couple nights ago a would-be victim of an armed robbery, a 77 year old retired Chicago fireman (a CCW holder), stopped a miscreant who attempted to rob him at gunpoint. Last night a delivery man in Philly (legally armed) turned the tables on three men who tried to rob him, killing one suspect and sending another to the hospital in critical condition. There’s two in just the last couple days. There are many, many more instances of good guys (and gals) with guns taking personal responsibility for their safety. The thing is, though, with more people armed, you cannot gage how it might influence the decision making process of people bent on doing bad things.
I have a CCW, but, for some of the reasons previously noted, I do not advocate open carry. Too easy for someone to sneak up behind you, bash your skull in and take your weapon. That being said, if you want to take that risk, have at it.
Sod off, Mr. French. No one is forcing you to look at the ewil nasty gunz.
David French calls himself conservative, but I have my doubts. He spends most of his writing critical of people on the right. Now some of his writing is justifiably critical as in the cases he has highlighted regarding sexual impropriety. I think he bends over backwards to pick at conservatives. I’ve yet to see him write an article about what conservatives do correctly , or for that matter attack the left.
I would never walk off my property and open carry. I think it is foolish. But if you want to open carry, have at it.
God Bless All of You for supporting my/our right to open carry. But, you do not need to argue against the obvious. YES, it is intimidating to some people to see open carry. Why deny that? People are intimidated by all imaginable things, from loud rap music in a car, to a 6’2″ 250 pounder with a scowl on his face.
French’s assertion’s that intimidation is enough to sensibly outlaw open carry, then we might as well outlaw types of clothing, body art, and growling dogs.
I open carry everywhere I am legally allowed to. If a person is intimidated by my OC, that is sad, and positively not my fault. I constantly have people giving me thumbs up, or thanking me outright for OC. I am just as likely to be thanked for my OC when carrying as for my military service when wearing my service cap.
For all of you, the 2nd Amendment addresses personal security as much as it does tyrannical government. Every person on Earth has a right to protect themselves. In many nations, that must be done with something like a shovel, or a frying pan. Our 2A gave us the best protective tool available, and every person, from pastor to criminal, should understand that right.
Well said sir
The fact is not everyone is emotionally, psychologically, or physiologically capable of going about armed. It is illogical to expect everyone should be armed because you think its your right to walk around openly armed. And what about making LE’s jobs even more difficult, if not impossible? Most LE do not support open carry for good reason. What about the story of hero John Hurley who took out an active shooter/cop killer in Colorado only to be gunned down by the police he saved? I support concealed carry with reasonable demonstration of knowledge of safety and physiological/psychological capability. Y’all act like putting on a gun is like putting on your clothes in the morning. Every year people shoot other hunters mistaking them for turkeys and deer. There are a lot of dumb people in this country and they also are often not capable of meeting the responsibility wearing a gun requires. There is nothing unconstitutional about restricting gun ownership and use as long as it is reasonable. Outright bans are not reasonable.
“Most LE do not support open carry for good reason. ”
Have any proof of that assertion?
Liberty is too dangerous for some people to enjoy. You really should relocate to a safer space outside the United States borders. You’ll be happier and the absence of your sort will further secure Liberty for us
French utterly misses the point of open carry. The intent of open carry is to inform. The intent of open carry is to inform that no matter the size of person, be they a 98 lbs. female or a 300 lbs football lineman, that all are equal in their sovereign protection of their self. If being informed of a persons’ ability to protect themselves is perceived by the receiver of that information as a threat, that is an interpretation issue of the receiver. This points to a disparity in protection capability; rather than adjust up the laggards capabilities the offended wishes to equalize the disparity thru the reduction of your capabilities. The choice to upgrade or not one’s defensive capabilities is an exercise of freedom, the forced reduction of one’s self-defensive capabilities is an exercise in tyranny. An armed society is a polite society; and what better way to instill politeness on a society than equalizing all in an open, informed way. As was said “God created men; Col. Colt made them equal.” – this illustrates the point.
If open carry by others is worrisome for someone there are many options to mitigate their concern, including seeing a therapist or moving to a place where it is not allowed (San Francisco for example). When that person truly favors infringing upon the natural right of self defense their character is clear. Rittenhouse was legally carrying when he legally defended himself, whilst the others illegally attacking him were not legally carrying. It is not a provocation to exercise a natural right (preparedness in this case). A provocation to any liberal/communist/elitist is others exercising freedom. Weak minded fallacies cannot replace truth with lies. Video shows us that assaulting other people is risky business. If someone feels triggered enough to attack an armed person the record shows that such behavior can be self limiting.
As many others here have already mentioned, I don’t really give a (use your own expletive) who “French” is, or what he thinks. I choose to carry concealed because it doesn’t tell the bad guys to “deal with me” first. If someone else wants to carry openly, then that’s their God-given right! French’s premise that open carry is somehow “threatening” or “intimidating” is asinine. He appears to be just one more mental midget who judges the majority by the actions of the minority… he’d make a fine politician.
First of all our right to bear arms is primarily outlined as self defense against an unethical overreaching government “tyrany”. It is supposed to make people think and remember our founding principles, and why we must defend them. It is not only our right, but our duty as Americans. Our corrupt government and media called a protesting group that formed their own country where innocent people were tortured, raped, and even killed, a peaceful protest. That is a textbook insurrection on a small scale. We should all remember what we were given by our founders, it was not just a script to be reinterpreted, it was the insurance policy that is supposed to protect us all. We must stand against any enemy of the Constitution in even the smallest of contests. Be safe, and please stand for what is right.
In the Kyle Rittenhouse open carry or not to open carry was a non issue since BY LAW the only way he Could carry was open. If he could have carried a hand gun then there would have been a choice. Open carry is not so much intimidating as it noticed. Why is it “safer” for a 17 year old to carry a long gun rather than a pistol?
You don’t want to call into question this guy’s 2A bona fides? Why not? If you won’t, I will. So he owns an AR-15. So what? I don’t. And not because I don’t believe they should be available — I just think they’re ugly. I much prefer the cleaner lines of an 03 Springfield or a Garand. But that’s me. If you want to own an AR-15, go for it. So he’s a CCW license holder? So what? So am I (and an instructor). That just means he has done the government-mandated training and done the paperwork to get the license.
None of that is what the Second Amendment is all about. The Second Amendment is all about keeping the population able to control the government in the event that it becomes destructive (rather than protective) of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This guy is happy to comply with the government to get and keep his gun — but he wants to control how other people choose to carry theirs. If someone is intimidated by someone carrying a gun, that second person should be prohibited from carrying it? Hmmm. I just read another item here where some script person has sued Alec Baldwin for infliction of emotional distress because they were NEAR a gun that was actually fired. And I’m sure that person is not alone in this great country of ours. That person is intimidated just by being near a gun. Accept French’s proposition and the second amendment is gone. He’s not a supporter; he’s an underminer of the basic rights of our population. He has no 2A support bona fides — whether you’re willing to say so or not.
Snowflakes who are intimidated by the presence of a visible gun should grow a set. It’s a piece of metal (and usually plastic) and sometimes wood. Unless it’s pointed at you, you’re not in any peril from it. And if fact, if some loony does decide to commit a crime near you, that hunk of metal and plastic and wood, in the hands of someone who has taken the time to become skilled in its use, MIGHT JUST SAVE YOUR LIFE.
French’s idea is completely antithetical to the entire concept of the Bill of Rights. The guy needs to repeat American History — at a school that really teaches it!
I think there should be zero restrictions on gun ownership. That includes automatic weapons. If everyone were armed then we would all be safer.
Absolute nonsense. Show me anything that indicates that more peiple armed makes anyone safer. Idiotic.
@Nick: Then we’d need t work on the market forces that made them very expensive.
Then, HK MP5A2–come home to papa. 8>)
“…anytime a gun is displayed in public it has the potential to frighten people,…”
I find a holstered firearm, a slung rifle, to be a lot less frightening than one being held in the hand by a wild eyed lunatic. It might be holstered or slung by a wild eyed lunatic, but it is not as frightening. I will say though, that someone in a benign situation, holding any rifle at the ready with their finger on the trigger is probably not a good advertisement for the 2A.
So that’s why the government open carries. It to intimidate the public.
“I don’t have a right to use my weapons to make them afraid.”
Then don’t point your firearm AT anyone, dumbass!
Well what do you expect?
His name is “FRENCH” after all. He probably prefers the drop your gun and run defense.
Their mob can surround you, shove and shout at you and that’s not intimidation?
Bullcrap!
Makes me want to open carry everywhere.
If I am offended by someone being offended by me open carrying. Whose offending gets priority?
Stop me.
The definition of a method of carry as immoral is just silly. Open carry is tactically unsound so it’s not a good choice but morality isn’t an issue here.
I never open carry, but I always try to give thanks for those who do. These are the guys “walking point though the jungle”. They’ll be the first to be targeted and killed in Walmart by a bad guy with a gun. This gives me time to either get my family to safety or stop the bad guy myself (with my concealed weapon).
So, as tactically unwise as it is to open carry, I’m glad that we still have folks who do it.
You are Dead On Don! I never open carry, because I don’t want anyone to know I’m carrying. It’s like saying, “ Hey, I have a nice gun here, come and try to take it.” If open carry is your thing, go ahead on full steam, but it’s not a sound practice in my opinion.
Ditto that, LarryD
Kind’a like walking around with 20 $100 bills hanging from your belt. Legal, but stupid as hell.
If you think someone can’t get the drop on you from behind and take “their” new pistol from your open carry holster, you better have a secondary readily available, preferably concealed.
David French is an anti-gun extremist.
I’m offended by fat do-nothing men in skinny jeans and people that think their opinion of how I should live matters, in any way, to me. Live free or die
Okay, I’ve “re-thought” it. It’s still a great idea and my RIGHT.
Although I have not read the entire article, it seems like it’s premise is built on this statement “ It’s often designed to be menacing, to intimidate the public and public officials.”. The statement confuses the right with a poor use of the right. To me this most likely invalidates any and all conclusions posited by the author.
French is a RINO and a self-important, self-styled “elite” who thinks he knows better than you about how you should live. (Hmmm…. sounds like a dimmycrat!) I stopped paying attention to the likes of him, Bill Kristol, and a few other neocons years ago when their blather became irrelevant. While I’m not surprised he would come up with this silliness, I also think few people bother with him any more. Other than his sycophants, of course, an ever-shrinking bunch that can’t think for themselves (again – dimmycrats?!?!?)
Don’t know who David French is and don’t care…I also don’t care about offending people…I don’t walk around every day worrying about thin skinned people..
Grow a pair or get used to being offended….
I think we have our laws completely backwards. There should be no restrictions on concealed carry; forcing people to say what is on their person that is not visible is a violation of the fourth amendment. Cities, states, and other areas have a right to tell you to put your weapon away. The entire concept of concealed carry is illogical, and designed to draw attention away from that simple fact. They butter gun owners up with the distraction of classes and a permit for them to perform what was already their right. If they get away with regulating the unregulatable cc, then it’s a very short step to do away with the easily regulatable and highly visible open carry. I think that from the perspective of gun grabbers, concealed carry is pure genius. Just my opinion.
“I don’t want to call into question French’s 2A bona fides”
Why in the world not? I don’t care what he owns or if he has a concealed carry permit, by stating that open carry is somehow dangerous and immoral he has declared himself opposed to the spirit of the 2A.