Death
01-09-2013, 06:00 PM
This is my rough draft of my final essay for my communications class. It is a 1st year college level class. I'll give +full rep for any useful comments or critiques of the essay. It's due this Sunday, Jan. 13th. It's a little long, but the requirement for this essay is 1750-2000 words. The references section & paragraph separation doesn't seem to want to format properly on the forum. :( The topic is Discrimination experienced by those who openly carry firearms in society.The entire paper is intended to be in APA format.
Carrying a gun, especially out in the open instead of concealed, is a decision that should be made with an exceeding amount of care. People who are licensed to openly carry a firearm are within their legal rights; however, they continue to be discriminated against by many businesses as well as the general populace for exercising this right. There are specific areas and buildings in which even properly licensed individuals may not legally carry firearms. These areas are any court facility, any federal property (unless authorized, such as military personnel), detention facilities (both adult and juvenile), and secured areas of airport terminals. ("Pa Open Carry", n.d.) Very closely related to the gun control debate which has been in mainstream media as of late, there is a big debate on both sides of the “open carry movement.”
Proponents of open carry support their position on the basis that openly carrying a firearm is a likely deterrent to a criminal or attacker, the fact that the second amendment does not specifically prohibit openly carrying, and unless specifically noted in related legislation it is within a properly licensed person’s legal rights. Opponents argue openly carrying firearms encourages crime and poses a safety threat by the intentional or unintentional discharge of a weapon. Openly carrying a weapon makes it easier than if the weapon were being carried concealed to access for both the gun owner and anyone who would desire to take possession of the weapon and potentially use it against the gun owner or others. ("Pa Open Carry", n.d.)
One thing that will help the open carrier retain their weapon is an active-retention style holster. There are different levels of retention available for different purposes. The lowest level of retention would be a level one, or simple friction retention. These holsters offer little protection against a weapon being taken from the gun owner, as the only thing holding the weapon in the holster is friction between the holster and the weapon itself. The different classifications above level one friction holsters vary by definition from one holster manufacturer to another. The similarity in more advanced holsters however comes in that for each added level of retention, there is another manner, or mechanical device holding the weapon in the holster that must be overcome to remove the weapon from the holster. For purposes of openly carrying, paddle style holsters, which use only a paddle to attach to user’s pants, and holsters which are “Level one” or friction only retention holsters should be avoided. These types of holsters make it easiest for an assailant to disarm a gun owner. ("Florida Carry", 2012)
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Example of a “paddle” style holster. The “paddle” behind the weapon, slips inside the wearer’s pants at the waistline.
Example of a level two active retention style holster. Notice the mechanical tab which locks into place around the trigger guard. This tab must also be depressed to draw the weapon from the holster.
There are law enforcement officials as well as private citizens who are not aware of the laws surrounding openly carried firearms, as well as those who choose to discriminate against open carriers for personal or political reasons. “Businesses are private property and they have the right to allow or disallow any behavior they please. Unfortunately most businesses do not post these rules, particularly their policy on allowing or prohibiting firearms.” ("Pa Open Carry", n.d.) Law enforcement officials have been called to meetings of open carry political activists in businesses by citizens stating that they were concerned about the open carriers’ intentions. Open carriers have been eating peaceably in a restaurant just the same as anyone else in the restaurant, except for the fact that they had a firearm on their person, and been discriminated against, asked or forced to leave the premises, and even detained or arrested while engaging in no illegal activity. They just happened to have weapons on them which they were legally authorized to carry.
On September 18th, 2010 a meeting of five members of an open carry organization called Wisconsin Carry met at a local Culver’s restaurant for a meal. All five men present were openly carrying firearms. As the men ate their meal at an outside table, a woman inside the restaurant called local police and informed them that the group was sitting outside the restaurant, eating while armed. Police showed up to the restaurant and asked the men to show their ID cards in order to prove that they were not felons, which would mean that they were not allowed to be carrying firearms. Two of the men simply remained silent and did not produce their identification. The officers present then arrested those who did not show their identification. They were handcuffed, disarmed, searched, and detained until the officers verified that they were not felons. After determining the men were not felons, they were released, but were given citations for obstructing an officer. Wisconsin Carry pressed a legal suit against the city and the police department, and won a $10,000 settlement from the city in lieu of a judgment. ("Madison.com", 2010) All charges against the open carriers were dropped.
According to "Wisconsin.gov" (2012), Wisconsin law states that “After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct.” The officers acted in accordance to that law in asking for the open carriers’ identification; or did they? What reason did the officers have to believe as the law states “these people were committing, were about to commit, or had committed a crime” aside from the fact that they were visibly armed? They were sitting at an outside table, doing nothing other than eating and having a conversation. If the men had not been openly carrying their firearms, likely no one would have given them a second look. This is a good example of discrimination since the men were all within their legal rights.
The second amendment to the Constitution is the most often referenced legislation referring to firearm ownership. Proponents and opponents of firearms both use it as they interpret it to argue their individual cases. The full verbiage of the second amendment is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (“United States National Archives”, n.d.) Nothing specific mentioning open or concealed carry is stated within the second amendment itself. Proponents of gun rights use that fact in association with other legislation to proclaim that their right to carry a weapon openly is a constitutionally protected right. Those in favor of heavier restrictions on firearms however use the fact that the second amendment does not specifically state conditions for gun ownership to infer that firearms should be heavily restricted, pose a safety risk to the general populace, and that the second amendment only covers the states’ right to have militias for the defense of the state.
Gun violence is a major problem in the United States. According to the "National Institute Of Justice" (2010), “In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm. Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.” That statistic is especially important as most people who choose to openly carry, do so with handguns. It is much rarer for someone to be open carrying a rifle, unless they are actively hunting at the time or on their way to or from doing so. Notice in the chart below from the National Institute of Justice how much lower the number of homicides are with guns other than hand guns.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Not all businesses discriminate against open carriers. The National Gun Victims Action Council, in response to Starbucks’ support of open carry laws and allowing open carriers to eat and drink at all Starbucks, called a nation-wide boycott of Starbucks to begin on Valentine’s Day 2012. “Currently, Starbucks allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states). The difference between the numbers of states is due to individual state laws and has nothing to do with Starbucks. Starbucks would be within their legal rights to ban all firearms from their stores, as they are a privately owned company. “The emergence of right-to-carry laws has created obvious issues for business owners and employers. If customers and employees might now legally have deadly weapons on the business owner's premises, almost certainly situations would occur in which those weapons would be used.” (“Individual Gun Rights, Gun Laws, and Franchising: Why Franchisors Cannot Ignore the Controversy,” 2010) Starbucks is one of the few exceptions to the rule. Most businesses either do not have, or do not publicize such a support of open carrying.
Open carry has not been common since the times of the “Old West,” but has been becoming more common in recent years. Mass media has brought the issue of gun control into most homes across the country especially with several much publicized mass shootings like the Sandy Hook elementary School and Aurora Colorado movie theater shootings. The benefits of open carrying are that a criminal may be deterred from attacking the open carrier or robbing the business where there are open carriers, as criminals do not normally wish to contend with a “hard” or armed target. In the case of an emergency, openly carrying provides quicker and easier access to your weapon. Depending on the method of dress one chooses, openly carrying may also prove more comfortable than concealed carrying.
Even proponents of open carry admit to there being disadvantages to openly carrying. Openly carrying makes it obvious that a person is armed. Aggressors are able to both sum up your abilities, and potentially take the firearm and use it against the gun owner and others. Of course there is the discrimination and possible harassment an open carrier subjects him or herself to. Law enforcement officials are not always trained to properly deal with someone who is openly carrying. Much of the discrimination experienced by open carriers comes from a combination of this fact and the fact that American society in general is unaccustomed to seeing people other than military personnel, security officers, and law enforcement officials carrying firearms. When not met with opposition, the experience an open carrier has the most by the general public is one of curiosity. Open carriers are frequently asked why they are openly carrying.
Proponents of gun rights feel that the better prepared one is to deal with a potential attacker the less violent crime will occur. Proponents of restrictions on firearm ownership feel that with fewer firearms there will be fewer crimes committed with them. Both positions are correct, but the discrimination open carriers experience shows that society is not ready to accept either side of the argument.
References:
PA Open Carry. (n.d.).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
PA Open Carry. (n.d.).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
PA Open Carry. (n.d.).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
Florida Carry. (2012).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links] open-carry-holster
Madison.com. (2010).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links] confusion-over-open-carry/article_eacaa046-c571-11df-a52c- 001cc4c002e0.html
Wisconsin.gov. (2012). Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
United States National Archives. (n.d.). Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
National Isntitute of Justice. (2010). Retrieved from
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
PR Newswire. (2012). Retrieved from
[Only registered and activated users can see links] gun-victims-advocate-group-to-launch-nationwide-boycott-on-valentines- day-2012-137890863.html
Individual Gun Rights, Gun Laws, and Franchising: Why Franchisors Cannot Ignore the Controversy. (2010, December). Franchise Law Journal , 29(4), 239-252. Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]=a9h&AN=51671276
Carrying a gun, especially out in the open instead of concealed, is a decision that should be made with an exceeding amount of care. People who are licensed to openly carry a firearm are within their legal rights; however, they continue to be discriminated against by many businesses as well as the general populace for exercising this right. There are specific areas and buildings in which even properly licensed individuals may not legally carry firearms. These areas are any court facility, any federal property (unless authorized, such as military personnel), detention facilities (both adult and juvenile), and secured areas of airport terminals. ("Pa Open Carry", n.d.) Very closely related to the gun control debate which has been in mainstream media as of late, there is a big debate on both sides of the “open carry movement.”
Proponents of open carry support their position on the basis that openly carrying a firearm is a likely deterrent to a criminal or attacker, the fact that the second amendment does not specifically prohibit openly carrying, and unless specifically noted in related legislation it is within a properly licensed person’s legal rights. Opponents argue openly carrying firearms encourages crime and poses a safety threat by the intentional or unintentional discharge of a weapon. Openly carrying a weapon makes it easier than if the weapon were being carried concealed to access for both the gun owner and anyone who would desire to take possession of the weapon and potentially use it against the gun owner or others. ("Pa Open Carry", n.d.)
One thing that will help the open carrier retain their weapon is an active-retention style holster. There are different levels of retention available for different purposes. The lowest level of retention would be a level one, or simple friction retention. These holsters offer little protection against a weapon being taken from the gun owner, as the only thing holding the weapon in the holster is friction between the holster and the weapon itself. The different classifications above level one friction holsters vary by definition from one holster manufacturer to another. The similarity in more advanced holsters however comes in that for each added level of retention, there is another manner, or mechanical device holding the weapon in the holster that must be overcome to remove the weapon from the holster. For purposes of openly carrying, paddle style holsters, which use only a paddle to attach to user’s pants, and holsters which are “Level one” or friction only retention holsters should be avoided. These types of holsters make it easiest for an assailant to disarm a gun owner. ("Florida Carry", 2012)
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Example of a “paddle” style holster. The “paddle” behind the weapon, slips inside the wearer’s pants at the waistline.
Example of a level two active retention style holster. Notice the mechanical tab which locks into place around the trigger guard. This tab must also be depressed to draw the weapon from the holster.
There are law enforcement officials as well as private citizens who are not aware of the laws surrounding openly carried firearms, as well as those who choose to discriminate against open carriers for personal or political reasons. “Businesses are private property and they have the right to allow or disallow any behavior they please. Unfortunately most businesses do not post these rules, particularly their policy on allowing or prohibiting firearms.” ("Pa Open Carry", n.d.) Law enforcement officials have been called to meetings of open carry political activists in businesses by citizens stating that they were concerned about the open carriers’ intentions. Open carriers have been eating peaceably in a restaurant just the same as anyone else in the restaurant, except for the fact that they had a firearm on their person, and been discriminated against, asked or forced to leave the premises, and even detained or arrested while engaging in no illegal activity. They just happened to have weapons on them which they were legally authorized to carry.
On September 18th, 2010 a meeting of five members of an open carry organization called Wisconsin Carry met at a local Culver’s restaurant for a meal. All five men present were openly carrying firearms. As the men ate their meal at an outside table, a woman inside the restaurant called local police and informed them that the group was sitting outside the restaurant, eating while armed. Police showed up to the restaurant and asked the men to show their ID cards in order to prove that they were not felons, which would mean that they were not allowed to be carrying firearms. Two of the men simply remained silent and did not produce their identification. The officers present then arrested those who did not show their identification. They were handcuffed, disarmed, searched, and detained until the officers verified that they were not felons. After determining the men were not felons, they were released, but were given citations for obstructing an officer. Wisconsin Carry pressed a legal suit against the city and the police department, and won a $10,000 settlement from the city in lieu of a judgment. ("Madison.com", 2010) All charges against the open carriers were dropped.
According to "Wisconsin.gov" (2012), Wisconsin law states that “After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct.” The officers acted in accordance to that law in asking for the open carriers’ identification; or did they? What reason did the officers have to believe as the law states “these people were committing, were about to commit, or had committed a crime” aside from the fact that they were visibly armed? They were sitting at an outside table, doing nothing other than eating and having a conversation. If the men had not been openly carrying their firearms, likely no one would have given them a second look. This is a good example of discrimination since the men were all within their legal rights.
The second amendment to the Constitution is the most often referenced legislation referring to firearm ownership. Proponents and opponents of firearms both use it as they interpret it to argue their individual cases. The full verbiage of the second amendment is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (“United States National Archives”, n.d.) Nothing specific mentioning open or concealed carry is stated within the second amendment itself. Proponents of gun rights use that fact in association with other legislation to proclaim that their right to carry a weapon openly is a constitutionally protected right. Those in favor of heavier restrictions on firearms however use the fact that the second amendment does not specifically state conditions for gun ownership to infer that firearms should be heavily restricted, pose a safety risk to the general populace, and that the second amendment only covers the states’ right to have militias for the defense of the state.
Gun violence is a major problem in the United States. According to the "National Institute Of Justice" (2010), “In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm. Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.” That statistic is especially important as most people who choose to openly carry, do so with handguns. It is much rarer for someone to be open carrying a rifle, unless they are actively hunting at the time or on their way to or from doing so. Notice in the chart below from the National Institute of Justice how much lower the number of homicides are with guns other than hand guns.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Not all businesses discriminate against open carriers. The National Gun Victims Action Council, in response to Starbucks’ support of open carry laws and allowing open carriers to eat and drink at all Starbucks, called a nation-wide boycott of Starbucks to begin on Valentine’s Day 2012. “Currently, Starbucks allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states). The difference between the numbers of states is due to individual state laws and has nothing to do with Starbucks. Starbucks would be within their legal rights to ban all firearms from their stores, as they are a privately owned company. “The emergence of right-to-carry laws has created obvious issues for business owners and employers. If customers and employees might now legally have deadly weapons on the business owner's premises, almost certainly situations would occur in which those weapons would be used.” (“Individual Gun Rights, Gun Laws, and Franchising: Why Franchisors Cannot Ignore the Controversy,” 2010) Starbucks is one of the few exceptions to the rule. Most businesses either do not have, or do not publicize such a support of open carrying.
Open carry has not been common since the times of the “Old West,” but has been becoming more common in recent years. Mass media has brought the issue of gun control into most homes across the country especially with several much publicized mass shootings like the Sandy Hook elementary School and Aurora Colorado movie theater shootings. The benefits of open carrying are that a criminal may be deterred from attacking the open carrier or robbing the business where there are open carriers, as criminals do not normally wish to contend with a “hard” or armed target. In the case of an emergency, openly carrying provides quicker and easier access to your weapon. Depending on the method of dress one chooses, openly carrying may also prove more comfortable than concealed carrying.
Even proponents of open carry admit to there being disadvantages to openly carrying. Openly carrying makes it obvious that a person is armed. Aggressors are able to both sum up your abilities, and potentially take the firearm and use it against the gun owner and others. Of course there is the discrimination and possible harassment an open carrier subjects him or herself to. Law enforcement officials are not always trained to properly deal with someone who is openly carrying. Much of the discrimination experienced by open carriers comes from a combination of this fact and the fact that American society in general is unaccustomed to seeing people other than military personnel, security officers, and law enforcement officials carrying firearms. When not met with opposition, the experience an open carrier has the most by the general public is one of curiosity. Open carriers are frequently asked why they are openly carrying.
Proponents of gun rights feel that the better prepared one is to deal with a potential attacker the less violent crime will occur. Proponents of restrictions on firearm ownership feel that with fewer firearms there will be fewer crimes committed with them. Both positions are correct, but the discrimination open carriers experience shows that society is not ready to accept either side of the argument.
References:
PA Open Carry. (n.d.).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
PA Open Carry. (n.d.).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
PA Open Carry. (n.d.).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
Florida Carry. (2012).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links] open-carry-holster
Madison.com. (2010).
Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links] confusion-over-open-carry/article_eacaa046-c571-11df-a52c- 001cc4c002e0.html
Wisconsin.gov. (2012). Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
United States National Archives. (n.d.). Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]
National Isntitute of Justice. (2010). Retrieved from
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
PR Newswire. (2012). Retrieved from
[Only registered and activated users can see links] gun-victims-advocate-group-to-launch-nationwide-boycott-on-valentines- day-2012-137890863.html
Individual Gun Rights, Gun Laws, and Franchising: Why Franchisors Cannot Ignore the Controversy. (2010, December). Franchise Law Journal , 29(4), 239-252. Retrieved from [Only registered and activated users can see links]=a9h&AN=51671276