Armed civilians, far fewer of whom are carrying open or concealed arms than almost universal police carry, lawfully use lethal defensive force to stop violent felons in the act twice as many times per year as do police. Police, whether due to arrogant attitudes, poor training and discipline, or recklessness, have an error rate resulting in 6 times the rate of wrongful deaths as do armed civilians using lethal defensive force legally (per Dept of Justice/NCIC crime stat's). Studies suggest that difference is due to a mix of better training and discipline by those citizens who voluntarily exercise Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, along with knowing the facts from situations they find themselves in more accurately than police arriving on the scene with adrenalin pumping and often overriding what is in many departments financial or political crippling of what could be far better training, and misguided psych profiles not for peace officers, but aggressive political mercenaries and revenue raisers.

Since part of the US 2nd Amendment is for a purpose of protecting citizen rights to use terrorist and cel militia tactics to take down a corrupt government, just as was done to the Brits to form our country, it's impossible to have government regulation amounting to prior restraint on firearms without violating those rights, just as it's not legal to restrict printing press or public assembly rights, or restrict who might yell "Fire" unjustifiably in a crowded theater. Any criminal or civil liability for wrongful use can only legitimately be imposed after the fact on that small minority who abuses those rights, in any such case. Unlike cars or chain saws or even bathroom fixtures around infants, firearms are one of the safest classes of common power tools, and most people who choose to carry for legal purposes voluntarily obtain better education and skills development than is required of most police officers.

For that mix of reasons, most efforts to restrict firearms are either based on irrational fears of people failing to apply responsible analysis of accurate facts, or are political or para-religious efforts to maliciously abridge core civil rights of others. Documented reality is that most violent felonies are perpetrated using blunt objects, natural or man made, or "personal weapons" (NCIC classifications, the latter human body parts), whereas firearms are used in a small fraction of crimes but are often the most effective defensive tool. Even people with irrational fears benefit when neighbors with the knowledge, skills, and discipline to carry sidearms do so, beyond what is affordable or possible relying on police. Persons objecting to armed neighbors often lack that discipline personally, and usually don't know that US law holds police not responsible for protecting any individual in any given situation, a purely personal right and responsibility. Police are legally charged only with protecting a general concept of civil peace, not you or me when we might most need it.

legalienate

Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Open Fly Front

The Open Fly Front

The Open Carry gun movement has inspired a newer group of men to demand the right to appear in public with their pants unzipped. This Open Fly movement has caught authority with its pants down, since constitutional law doesn't seem to cover this aspect of freedom, which is being used by an even more vociferous group of rights-demanding American men. Legalienate interviewed the chairman of the New York chapter of Proudly Unzip That Zorch (Putz) at his home in Queens.

What has motivated you to demand this right to go out in public with your pants unzipped?

Anger around this issue has been building since Bill Clinton disgraced the country with his unmanly policies - like queers in the military and "No Fly" zones in Iraq. We want "Pro Fly" zones, not "No Fly" zones. We think it is time for American men to boldly present their manhood, or at least show that it is at hand for any emergency. We think that the sight of manly men with their pants opened and at the ready for exposure will help breed the respect, pride, and masculinity stolen from us by sissy culture.

Were you provoked by the Open Carry movement which has claimed the right to openly show a gun as long as it is unloaded?

We actually want to go one better because we feel the Open Carry movement is much less manly then our demand for Open Fly. In fact, I’ve long believed that men who need to show a gun are probably lacking in balls, and therefore need the feeling of comfort and security they get from carrying a fake weapon. We members of PUTZ, on the other hand, have got the real thing, always loaded, and we’re ready to flash it, expose it and use it at a moment's notice. That’s why we want to keep our flies open when we are in public, so that anyone who sees us knows that we are red-blooded American men who will respond as such in an instant, if provoked.

What does the law say about this?

There are laws against indecent exposure, but we will not expose ourselves unless there is a critical situation that demands it, in which case it becomes decent. So having an open fly is protected by law since it isn't prevented by law.

What would be a situation to cause you and other members to, uh, flash your members?

Well, if a terrorist or homosexual, for instance, was creating a problem, PUTZ members in the area could instantly expose their manly genitals and quickly bring the situation under control.

How?

Well we know that terrorists are horrified by the sight of the human body, especially a bold American male genital organ, and homosexuals would be even more scared at the sight of a real man.

Really? You don't think a homosexual man might be excited by such a sight?

Uh.... . . maybe we need to rethink that one a little bit. But anyway, those terrorists are mostly heterosexual. Why would they want all those virgins at death unless they were heteros? More important is the fact that our movement is part of a rising up of Americans, especially men, who are pushing for a spurt of real change in a nation that has not only lost its way in the last few years but seems to have lost its masculinity as well. Our thrust is to prick holes in sissy culture by mounting an offensive for a re-birth of American freedom through proudly unzipping our flies and letting air into our pants while simultaneously airing out the American system of democracy which seems to have fallen into a socialistic communistic way of life that threatens our heritage, our future, and our sacred honor. We can't lick our enemies by remaining soft.

So you see going out in public with your fly open as a way of bringing about the change you think we need. How do you feel about other changes being called for, along with Open Carry, like gay marriage and the rejection of Don't ask Don’t tell in the military?

We think Open Carry and Open Marry are aspects of the same destructive, anti-real man culture, and the military rejection of red blooded heroic manly killers stems from the same communist-socialist plot to subvert our Founding Fathers and their dream of a nation of manly rich men in powdered wigs and corsets who owned slaves and kept women and made this country the great and powerful nation it has become. We say, Unzip for Freedom and let it All hang Out. But only if provoked, of course. We are law abiding citizens.

Posted by frank scott at 5:08 PM

As someone whose voluntary firearm training includes both youth around family farms and credentials to teach courses qualifying graduates for concealed carry permits in most states issuing those, it's clear that in most cases carry of loaded, concealed sidearms is most functional for armed civilians. That makes it difficult for potential violent felons to visibly tell if a public place is free of persons more capable of stopping a potential crime. It also helps to address issues of timing and surprise, where someone seen as carrying openly can't "look for an opening" to surprise a perpetrator in the act, noting it typically requires 4 seconds for a well trained person to draw and accurately fire from accessible modes of concealment.

What many commenters here seem to be missing is that while open carry of unloaded sidearms under California's unConstitutional abridgement of civil rights may involve an exercise of those compromised firearm related rights, this article is primarily about political speech, public assembly, and expression of government grievances regarding oppression of RTKBA. Those are all 1st Amendment issues, even if their topic and focus reflects 2nd and 9th Amendment rights (noting self defense is part of Common Law and generic 9th Amendment issues, versus "defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic", eg corrupt government, ours or theirs, being the 2nd Amendment focus).

In that respect, and to the extent that such visual speech by open carry reflects ideological elements of political views that are legal religion equivalents, any public accommodation (eg, lodging or food service business) that restricts such persons from their premises does the equivalent of banning Jews with yarmulkes under the facial neutrality fraud of a "no hats" policy.

As such, and subject to practical issues of US Attorney biases or court process, problem restaurants might be sued or prosecuted under 42 USC 2000 et seq civil rights law.

Also of legal note, Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment has never been explicitly adjudicated relative to the 2nd Amendment, as it has been to most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. That issue is presently working through the courts, a bit delayed from the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment. Judicial consistency standards already require such interpretation, and holding state laws that abridge the 2nd or 9th Amendments void since 1868, though that's difficult to enforce absent SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) specifically so ruling.

On a practical note, states with restrictive firearm laws that make training and practice expensive or difficult to obtain tend to inhibit responsible armed citizens from maintaining needed skills, whereas places where periodic shooting is easier to do inexpensively and near home tend to by minimal regulation foster the needed skills and experience of responsible armed civilians (and police too). That makes the stated legislative justification elements of many restrictive firearms laws a fraud, as under basic legal standards, any law that cannot accomplish its stated purpose is void and a fraud.

"Florida"....

Your depiction re: "feeling threatened" is way off base as to actual legal standards.

In general (and many details of legal process get complex or often twisted), the standard in most states for use of lethal defensive force is to "stop" (killing, if done, merely being a practical consequence) certain classes of violent felons (2nd degree assault, rape, arson, attempted murder), and only at times when they demonstrate "ability" and "imminent intent". That's generally filtered by the lawyering construct of a "reasonable person" test, and not someone acting phobic, delusional, or expressing irrational fears as some in this discussion have.

Texas after dark has seen some strange twists to its law, sometimes protecting the shooting in the back of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect, under law related to cattle rustling history. The FBI has in the past also been strange, with policies that allow perpetrating 1st and 2nd degree murders, when agents like Lon Horiuchi have shot persons possessing firearms with no indication of positions that would enable imminent use. Janet Reno treated that FBI murderer like some Russian diplomat who killed an American while drunk driving, holding FBI crooks above the law of state homicide prosecution by returning them to the "foreign sovereign" of the USA.

Someone who "feels threatened" seeing an armed person openly or concealed carrying a holstered sidearm lawfully in a public or private place might best find a good Psychologist, as the armed person is in no way engaging in what is a "legal threat". Such observers are manifesting phobic or delusion issues that may require medical intervention.

As a point of fact, in serious defensive firearm training, study of legal issues often requires more time and effort than does training in practical shooting and safety skills.

Little Murders
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Little Murders is a 1971 black comedy film starring Elliott Gould and Marcia Rodd about a girl (Rodd) who brings home her boyfriend (Gould) to meet her parents amidst a series of random shootings, garbage strikes and electrical outages ravaging the neighborhood and the family's severe dysfunction.

The film originated as a play written by cartoonist Jules Feiffer which he attempted to stage in New York City in 1967 but it lasted only seven performances. He made another attempt, this time at the Royal Shakespeare Company, directed by Christopher Morahan at the Aldwych Theatre in London, which was much more successful.