What's the difference?
Open carry is not a stunt. Sometimes it's about politics and protests require donning arms to get the point across. Yet the license (so to speak) to openly carry is not one to be a tone-deaf idiot. People don't want to see long guns in restaurants.
After the first few incidents in Texas were misinterpreted, Open Carry Texas backed off this practice. Here in Nevada, we always openly carried handguns into restaurants for our meet-ups. We minded our own business, were friendly, and weren't threatening. It was kind of like being in a celebrity in a lot of places. As we normalized open carry again in Nevada, the novelty kinda wore off and now an openly carried handgun is unremarkable (save certain corporate practices that force or encourage employees to make a big deal out of it).
Open carry isn't about showing off. It's a practical means of defensive carry. Pistols are ordinary, effective enough, and do not frighten the average citizen or rational politician. Rifles do. A protest or rally with rifles and American flags doesn't send the same signal that some unknown dude walking into a business does with a slung rifle.
For instance, it may be legal for women to be topless in New York and Utah, but if you walk into a church half-naked, people are gonna freak, you're gonna get trespassed, and you will win no one to your side.
Now you don't have to be Mr. Clean Cut White Shirt Guy while openly carrying, but not toting an AR-15 that half of America thinks is capable of killing on its own into TGI Friday's is a good thing. Pistols are normal and people support or ignore that. Rifles in the wrong context freak them out.
By now, we know that the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case Remington over the Sandy Hook massacre. The court should have dismissed the suit as being preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was intended to keep gun manufacturers from being sued by a criminal’s act using the firearm.
Allowing a victim to sue a manufacturer would be like allowing Ford to be sued because a drunk driver injured someone while behind the wheel of an F-150. Using the car analogy, it’s ridiculous to think Ford bares liability for someone’s criminal use of their vehicle. But because we have so stigmatized firearms somehow “it’s okay” to sue them.
The actual Connecticut Supreme Court ruling allow the suit to proceed forward because Remington’s advertising “might” violate state fair trade laws. What the US Supreme Court’s decision does is allow the actual trial to go forward.
One of the ads in question was “Consider your man card re-issued,” (imply the purchase of an AR-15 did that). Of course, the plaintiff would have to prove that Lanza saw the ad and was somehow influenced by it. It’s a difficult bar to reach because he is dead and took pains to destroy and information regarding motive. Also, the weapon was never purchased by Lanza. Instead, he murdered her and stole her firearms.
Even the Connecticut Supreme Court found that proving a violation might be problematic. The plaintiffs will likely lose at trial against Remington. That’s the one upside to all of this; the suit is obviously ludicrous. An appeal going forward would probably be supported not on the PLCAA, but free speech grounds. Nevertheless, it’s all about precedence and forcing gun makers to spend money defending this crap.
The problem for firearm manufacturers and the PLCAA is that the US Supreme Court not squashing this case summarily provides encouragement to anti-gunners to file lawsuits to try and exploit and crack they can. The incrementalism strategy of gun control is very dangerous in this regard, especially if the US Supreme Court waffles on future appeals. The plaintiffs should have been slammed down hard because this case was an affront to federal statutes.
The court should have shut this down on principle because at the heart of the challenge is this kind of find-a-weakness attack on the PLCAA. Our system of judicial review is being used against us and the court is too morally weak to think strategically. Oddly, courts wrap themselves narrowly in precedence and narrow reading but also exercise their own feelings and politics when it comes to decisions. On one day, they are too conservative with the law and the next they decide purely based on emotion and politics.
The idea of judicial review puts the ultimate power of everything in the hands of the Supreme Court making the nine robed “sages” our masters instead of a proper separation of powers. We cannot rely on courts to “save” our rights. Our rights are God-give and inherent. A court ruling is only a means to an end. We are also at the decline of American constitutional government and jurisprudence. No matter what favorable ruling we might get, it’s only a means to an end. We all know that one day we will have no other recourse than the ammo box.
Many people have been asking if licensed concealed carriers will be exempt from private background checks. No. Concealed firearm permittees:
No, you don't get to meet in a parking lot, flash a CCW, and call it a day (legally). Whether you have a CCW or not, the fee and the call to Carson applies to you. The Dept. of Public Safety recently put out a bulletin confirming this fact. The dealer also gets to charge whatever he wants, in addition to the state’s $25, for having to do the Form 4473 and make the phone call.
Concealed firearm permittees are granted an exemption from the federal Brady Background Check requirement when purchasing or transferring from a dealer pursuant to federal requirements. If you buy a gun new or used from a dealer’s inventory or buy one online and have it shipped to a dealer, you do not have to pay the background check fee and have the background check called into Carson City.
Again, this is a federal law that about half the states qualify for. State laws may be different. California, for example, doesn’t allow it unless you are in the Hollywood firearm industry. Some states’ permits don’t qualify (usually because fingerprints are not run through the FBI at issuance/renewal). Nevada’s law didn’t carry over the exemption for permittees.
Why did the legislators and the Bloomberg bill authors do this? Because fuck you, that’s why. They hate you and don’t think you should even own guns, so they aren’t going to save you the $25. They want to eventually register guns via transfer records so they want the transfers to be called in. Unlike the ATF, simply saving the Form 4473s are not enough. Californians will recall that the Golden State’s registry is based almost entirely off the sale/transfer DROS submissions by dealers.
Support Nevada Carry/Frontier Carry on Patreon for just $1 a month! This helps us keep the lights on and cover our expenses where the paltry ad revenue can't. It's a way to contribute something to help us keep spreading the truth about gun laws, gun control, and history. In return, you get access to rare tidbits I've found in historical research, links to scholarly articles, invitations to meet ups, premium Q&A questions etc. Please email regarding one-time donations.