There is not a more far-left court in the land than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based out of San Francisco, California. For that reason it came as a shock when a three-judge panel, by a two-to-one margin, recently voted to affirm that the Second Amendment allows the open carry of a firearm in public.

This can be considered a win for gun owners—at least for the time being. The decision will likely be appealed to an en-banc panel of all the San Francisco-based courts’ 29 judges. And considering how far left the 9th District is, it’s a fairly safe bet the three-judge panel will be overruled. Though this is a “win,” outside of the range I’m not in favor of open carry.

First and foremost, open carry gives up a tactical advantage. If a miscreant intent on harming others sees your gun, he will view you as a threat. That openly carried pistol almost screams, “Shoot me first!” to the reprobate.

Next is the fact that open carry will alarm little old ladies and snowflakes. Lawful gun owners are already painted as lunatics by the liberal media. Open carry may only add to that stereotype.

In addition, an openly carried pistol makes its wearer more susceptible to a gun snatch or losing it in a scuffle. In July, a trooper with the Arizona Department of Public Safety was murdered during a physical altercation while trying to make an arrest. He was killed when the murderer gained access to another officer’s gun carried in an off-duty holster. That second officer was also shot (and survived) before the murderer was subdued by other officers.

Many people think differently than I do, and proclaim that an openly carried gun may thwart a ne’er-do-well from committing a crime. Perhaps, but I believe the proven advantages of concealed carry outweigh the hypothetical advantages of open carry.

Until next time, stay low and watch your back.

0 Shares:
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like
Read More

Offbeat: Law Tactical Folding Stock Adapter

For about three score years, shooters who wanted a folding stock were driven to one set of rifle platforms, while the free world settled on the AR and refined it to its current state. That the AR needed a receiver extension poking out the stern end to function, limiting its retraction in length, was accepted, although not always happily. Enter Law Tactical.