The Open Carry Argument - Blogs - USA Carry - Concealed Carry Forum
View RSS Feed


The Open Carry Argument

Rate this Entry
[QUOTE=FreedomSSgt;621041]I came across your post from Mar 17th, 2009 re: Open Carry and would like to have your permission to use some of your language in Support of South Carolina Senate Bill S.449 and South Carolina House Bill H.3930.

These bills are for Constitutional Carry/Open Carry and have the full support of the NRA without amendments. They would allow an individual that is legal to own/purchase a firearm to carry, either concealed or openly. Your post was very well written and I feel could make an impact on those in the SC Senate/House to further advance the rights of the American people to be restored.

There are 3 additional bills in the Senate. They are currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bills are H.3924 which is a pro-gun bill to prevent the turnover of weapons to settle debt in time of financial hardship.

Senate bills S.159 and S.516 are NOT supported by the NRA-ILA. Bill S.159 would increase the waiting period to 28 days if no response from the FBI. It is currently 3 days in SC. Bill S.516 would increase to 5 days but is very poorly worded and would/could allow for future restrictions for South Carolinian in the future as precedent has been set.

Your post would also be used to Support/Oppose these bills with permission given.


Please Reply ASAP so I may have time to formulate my response for the decision makers at the South Carolina Capital. Please email to ensure I receive your response.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please see your private messages for my email address.

Kevin R. Stasik[/QUOTE]
Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


  1. freethink's Avatar
    I'm surprised there was no comment (until now) on this above blog post, which I found quite interesting for a few reasons.

    While I'm more supportive of concealed carry than open carry (I think there is ample evidence that crime is substantially reduced in areas where concealed carry is allowed more permissively, as has been documented by John Lott's studies on American concealed carry in practice), I think people should be allowed to utilize either concealed or open carry as they would wish. It seems to me that the U.S. Constitution should be used to back up this argument, but in recent history it certainly hasn't gone that direction in terms of how things are treated across the whole U.S. (federal / court cases) and so far it just has depended on what the states will do.

    What I find interesting here is that the South Carolina Senate Bill S.449 and South Carolina House Bill H.3930 in 2017 (for Constitutional Carry/Open Carry) had the full support of the NRA without amendments, but the NRA at the same time refused to support efforts in California for open carry. There is a interesting development in that here, as recent as Feb. 27, 2018, at California Right To ? California Open in an ongoing court case that a guy has run against the State of California (Nichols v. Brown) in which the submission of the case, fully briefed is being vacated for the time pending the results of a similar case in Hawaii. So after the Hawaii decision comes down it may be that we will see even further interesting developments in this case. It was just 12 days ago that this California Open Carry case had its latest court development and is worth following -- from a recent news article on the subject, Nichols is quoted as follows:

    "I am the first and only person in the fifty years since California’s ban on openly carrying loaded firearms became law to challenge that ban and to argue in my briefs that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Every so-called gun-rights group you may have heard of (NRA, CRPA, SAF, CalGuns, Gun Owners of America/California, etc) either filed lawsuits or filed briefs in support of California’s Open Carry ban and in support of California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.

    I am not a lawyer but, nonetheless, on December 3, 2017, my appeal appeared on the 9th circuit court of appeals oral argument calendar. Oral argument in my California Open Carry case is scheduled to take place on February 15, 2018, before a three-judge panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals.

    (As noted above, this went to the 9th Circus and we are now waiting for a Hawaii decision before more can be known. Courts are funny that way.)

    I had searched and searched for cases in which someone who was not an attorney, and who had never been an attorney, was allowed to argue his own case, without a lawyer, before the 9th circuit and today I found one.

    That case, Waters v. Young et al, was argued and submitted for a decision on October 11, 1996."

    What is also very interesting about this is that it shows how this guy Nichols, without a lawyer, has successfully moved forward a case against the State of California by using his own wits, careful research and proper filings, and 42 USC 1983 which allows people to sue to overturn unconstitutional actions and laws of a state.

    This is definitely worth looking at further as we examine how to challenge California's AB 857 (2016) and other laws in court!

    This whole thing began with Nichols' action 'in pro per' in the U.S. District Court in 2016 in which his opening salvo (of his 111 page filing against the State of California!) was...

    "Plaintiff-Appellant Nichols is now, and at all relevant times, a native born
    US citizen and resident of Los Angeles County California who invoked the district
    court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C.
    1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 against the Defendants-Appellees in their official capacity
    as Governor and Attorney General of the State of California seeking prospective
    injunctive and declaratory relief against various State of California
    prohibitory Penal Code laws(...)"

    Perhaps this was the beginning of a historic moment! We should all consider doing the same thing. (I know I am, and will use this as part of my approach to help overturn certain California laws.)

    Cheers all.