Gun Control - Now Discussing Tucson Shooting

I will say, the idea of gun equaling person in authority is not an idea I like.

 

It's not that the gun equals a person in authority. Note what I said in there: "as long as the wearer acts professionally". It's the combination of the behavior and the fact that a lot of people seem to have the impression that only cops are allowed to openly carry a handgun.

A lot of people seem to think that there are only two types of people who carry guns: cops and criminals. If you act professionally they just sort of assume that you must be a cop. That's one of the reasons some of my friends have given for why they open carry, so they can help eliminate false impressions like that.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Hey, they could just demonstrate accurate shot placement and efficient use of force if they want to demonstrate they're not cops.

 

I had a long post written up that I submitted yesterday, but it got lost somehow. Today, I have lunch with the boss (the entire office does), so I won't be able to address some of the issues KK and others brought up regarding my post about my scary experiences.

I will try and post tomorrow at lunch.

 

KK, this is just one area where I completely disagree with you. I'd say that some of your justifications seem to contradict each other.

Most of the people I know who open carry are very big advocates of practicing "situational awareness" - being aware and alert in regards to your surroundings. They maintain a very tactical mindset. However, they are thinking in terms of a different set of tactics than you are. Last I checked, tactical meant "of or relating to combat tactics".

Exactly my point. You're talking about regular people who strap a gun to their hip and walk around conducting daily business. Being tactical means not laying all your cards on the table. You refer to regular people vs criminals. If you think any criminal worth his crime local 101 union card isn't practicing the same level of situational awareness, you're mistaken. OK, so now you're faced with a church vandal who won't let you retreat. You know you have a gun. He sees you have a gun beacuse it is indeed out in the open for everyone to see. The open carry mindset of "I have it for the world to see" has the immediate consequnce of escalating every situation that might come up. Additionally, if you're bored, look up the concept of "the fatal 21 feet":

EXAMPLEHERE

Such a concept involves case law and the standards and training board for police officers, but let's debate the concept of reaction vs action. It's more complicated, but there is a reason why police are legally allowed more leaway to "cover" suspects with their handguns already drawn. Suffice to say, unless someone is a world class quick draw artist, the defense to a surprise attack is called a bullet proof vest and a high pain tolerance.

Except that the comfort that I'm talking about is physical comfort.

Yeah, and this sounds like a holster issue, or a non-supportive belt. Wearing a pistol is like strapping a can of Coke to your waist, regardless of if it's inside or outside the belt. My point was that if the only reason someone would expose their gun for everyone in the world to see is because it's physically uncomfortable, they might want to rethink the entire practice. Such physical discomfort is nothing like the discomfort of actually drawing and shooting someone.

When they do notice, as long as the wearer acts professionally they tend to just assume that they are a cop or some similar profession.

And I think this last point is more emotionally honest than any of the rest. Wearing a gun "open carry" style is exciting. It's ego-boosting. It's modern fantasy. I understand this. I mean, we wouldn't have pages upon pages in the military technology thread here basically glamorizing weapons if this wasn't true. Except as a practice, open carry is also incredibly stupid. I would say that if someone like that wants to walk into a diner and pretend "is he or isn't he a cop because he has a gun, or in the military, or a gun fighter," then they should probably just go through the police academy or boot camp and find out how unglamorous it actually is.

And I think my posts seem harsher than they are. I fully support the right for people to own guns, and to carry/use them for protection. But making such a decision is much, much larger than "because I can."

 

And I would say that your comments show a clear bias from living and working in an environment where the carry of handguns is essentially outright illegal.

How Much interaction do you actually have with people who open carry on a regular basis? Unless you've interacted with such people on a regular basis, you can't really speak to their motivations.

Some people I know open carry because they don't have and don't want a CHP, arguing that they shouldn't have to get a permit to exercise a right. For them, it is a matter of principle. For others, it is partially a political statement in support of gun rights. For others, it's because they honestly believe that it is a better way to carry than concealed.

What basis do you have to project your interpretations onto all of them? The open carry community is a diverse group of people. It is wrong for you to tar them all with the same brush. Yes, there are some who open carry for the reasons you describe, but they are not the whole of the community by a long shot.

When I mentioned people who act professionally being mistaken for cops, that wasn't to say that they are open carrying in order to create the impression that they are cops. I was simply pointing out the effect, not a motivation. You really have no basis to jump to conclusions about them like you did.

I don't advocate open carry as your primary means of carry, but I recognize that it can be more appropriate in certain circumstances. I generally prefer to conceal myself (although I am not a member of the "super secret" camp saying that you should never let anyone ever know if you carry), but I also respect those who open carry and the reasons why they do. You may think that they are foolish (and I would agree about some of them in some circumstances), but that doesn't make you right to denigrate their views and choices like you do.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Some people I know open carry because they don't have and don't want a CHP, arguing that they shouldn't have to get a permit to exercise a right. For them, it is a matter of principle. For others, it is partially a political statement in support of gun rights.

But see, none of those are really justifications for self defense. If none of the reasons support the rationale itself, the conclusion is rather obvious. None of those reasons overlap with serious tactics and the majority involve a variation of "because I should be able to." Why wouldn't someone, who makes the decision to carry a weapon, be willing to go through the concealed carry process? You're right- they don't have to, but it's a smart idea.

For others, it's because they honestly believe that it is a better way to carry than concealed.

Look, There might be a reason why someone would drive a car with their eyes closed. Maybe to save their night vision, or reduce sun glare or some such. But driving with your eyes closed is universially recognized as a really, really bad idea. Because my original point was that there are 99 reasons out of 100 why open carry is a bad idea. Just because there actually might be 1 reason doesn't negate the "bad idea" to "good idea" ratio. Really, this issue moves beyond political ideas. It's not being for or against guns, but it's just that in practice, there are better alternatives available.

That's the paradox. If you make the decision to carry a gun for defense, then you should get yourself some quality equipment and invest in some training. But as soon as you even finish a basic level of training, you realize that open carry is not a good idea. However, because we're talking about a right here, some people don't, and so the practice plods along. Just because something does exist, doesn't mean it should.

I realize it's probably never going to matter. Since the US isn't overrun with zombies, someone could visit their local gas station every day with a gun exposed on their hip for 20 years and never have an issue. But then the 1 time is going to come up, and there they are, holding their Corn Nuts in one hand, having their gun gleeming in the shop lights, and their one original decision just removed all the other decisions available to them.

 

Mr44, I think you are massively overstating your case.

For example, consider this article by Massad Ayoob. He's no fan of Open Carry, but he gives an honest assessment of many aspects of it.

For example, in talking about open carry, he told of the following experience:

Personally, I find it incredibly instructive that the only examples I've seen him give of open carriers being attacked for their guns have come from uniformed police officers. I would argue that makes for a special case, because most people expect a uniformed officer to be armed, and so they are not typical of a civilian open carrier. The uniform draws attention to the gun, rather than the gun drawing attention to the person.

As he illustrates in those articles, for many people Open Carry is the only viable option. For some (such as one person I know), it's because they are too young for a carry permit. (In Virginia, you can possess a handgun at 18, but cannot buy one or get a CHP until you are 21.) In some states (such as Wisconsin) Open Carry is the only option. It is simply one other mode of carry, and really doesn't attract as much attention as you claim it does.

I'm not saying that it's the best approach for every situation, but it is a valid one, and for many people and circumstances it is the best option available.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Except that's not what we're talking about. Remember, this is what he recounted:

I wore it most of the time in an inside-the-waistband holster I had designed for Mitch Rosen, the Ayoob Rear Guard (ARG). Even with most of the mass of the weapon obscured from view by the inside-the-waistband design, the weapon was clearly visible against the royal blue trainers? shirt generally worn by my school?s staff.

So when he says "clearly visible," he means just the top rear of the pistol, as most of his gun was concealed inside of his pants. The Ayoob Rear Guard isn't an open carry pistol. Had he not been 1)an off duty officer(even if out of state), and 2)a firearm instructor, he would have probably been in violation of the law. Even so, he clearly identifies the issues. Besides, Ayoob was referring to being in a gun lecture situation or being a professional witness for court proceedings. These are controlled environments which have completely different mindsets. Carry a pistol all you want at a firing range, challenge course, or training center. Not once did he advocate strapping on a gun that's visible to everyone in an uncontrolled environment just to go shopping. And besides, Ayoob's inside the waistband holster all but negates your prior comfort and quick draw points, as it's designed to be worn under a suit, and/or held close to the body.

Also, you're failing to differeniate between normal people and the threat level open carry is supposed to be a response to. The average John Q. Public in the middle of the herd probably isn't going to notice a pistol on someone's belt, or as you said, probably thinks the person is a guard or police officer. But presumably, that's not why someone would even want to open carry.

For some (such as one person I know), it's because they are too young for a carry permit. (In Virginia, you can possess a handgun at 18, but cannot buy one or get a CHP until you are 21.) In some states (such as Wisconsin) Open Carry is the only option. It is simply one other mode of carry, and really doesn't attract as much attention as you claim it does.

And this mindset plays exactly into the concerns of those who are anti-gun. Virginia requires the completion of specifically listed training/safety courses in order to get a permit. You actually know someone who is too young to take the required class, so he potentially straps on a pistol that's completely exposed because he can't just wait 3 years? Awesome. This is the kind of illustration that I'm sure makes those outside the US think Americans are stuck in the 1850's. Unless the 18 year old you know lives in Mogadishu, there's nothing in the US that's so pressing that he just can't wait and do it correctly.

I realize I'm certainly not going to change your mind. And yes, you're correct. Something that is a right doesn't need a justification. But as a responsible gun owner, you know what that means, and what a boneheaded practice this is.

 

Interesting discussion, although obviously I lean towards Mr44?s POV.

I want to go back to what Mr44 said a few pages ago. We have the right to free speech, but not the right to walk into a Starbucks and start screaming at someone. I?d add that no one has the right to walk down the street wearing a t-shirt depicting pornography. I also don?t see anything in the Constitution regarding open carry specifically.

That said...

Mayor Daley has introduced a new ordinance:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_chicago_gun_ban

The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :

? Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

? Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

? Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

? Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

? Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Except for the second to last item, these seem excessive, and I don?t like the intent. Among other things, it treats gun owners like children, even in their own home.

 

I just spent 45 minutes drafting a long, detailed post about the nature of 'rights' and how an activity described as a 'right' may still be regulated and so on and so forth but then I pressed something and it disappeared and now I've lost it and it's Friday afternoon here and I don't have the energy to re-type it all. So there you go. I'm just sharing my lost post with you all. It was a real good one.

 

LostOnHoth, did you include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in that?

And this is why I type up all my stuff in notepad first, since that happened way too many times.

 

It had everything Lowie. I even quoted the High Court in Mabo and somehow brought up Aboriginal land rights. You would have been a tree hugging, bead wearing, lentil eating, long haired hippy peacenik Michael Moore fan after reading that post.

 

DS, that's just Daley being Daley. For some reason Daley always grandstands with firearms. I could have sworn that his proposals passed in the City Council in something like a day or so, but maybe the City Council just agreed to to pass the ordnance, and actually hasn't yet.

? Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

I don't see how this is enforceable at all. IL already has an exemption under state law that if a firearm was used to protect oneself from a crime (in your home or business) that you couldn't be prosecuted for violating a local ordnance. I'd like to see how the city defines "operating order." Do they mean unloaded, or actually disassembled?

? Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

I don't see how this is enforceable as well. It's also one of the key concepts that the SC ruled on in the original Heller decision.

? Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

The "leave the city" part sounds worse than it is, because there are quite a few gun ranges just outside the city limits. Expect to see "$99 Chicago permit class!" specials to pop up at every one. Again though, this is another example that is just going to apply to those who want to meet the letter of Chicago's ordnance.

? Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

This one already mirrors federal and state law, so not much is different here. Except for the DUI provision. I don't know how the city is going to justify the DUI connection, as it would seem to be rather arbitrary and conflict with the state FOID requirements already in place.

? Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

I expect an instant legal challenge to this one. Or at the very least, it's the main reason why someone would simply bypass the city permit process altogether.

 

Then evidently, you don't understand the terminology of open carry.

Open carry simply means that you are carrying the pistol in such a way that it is not hidden from common observation. That means that it's not hidden in some way that a normal person would be unable to recognize that it is a pistol.

You can open carry with an IWB holster. I've done it myself many times. (Until yesterday, OC was required in a restaurant licensed to serve alcohol in Virginia. This led to the form of open carry known as the "Virginia Tuck", where you simply tuck your shirt behind the grip so it is visible.)

There is no age requirement in Virginia to take the safety training course. The age requirement is only for the actual issuance of the permit. In fact, there is a long list of ways that you can prove safety training for a Virginia CHP. Among them are a hunting license (which you can get as a minor), a military ID, any gun safety course taught by an NRA-certified instructor, and so forth.

In fact, the person I referenced who was in that situation is among the most responsible gun owners I've ever met. (He turned 21 a couple months ago and just barely received his CHP.) By open carrying under the age of 21, he broke no laws, and chose to exercise his rights and do what he could to provide for his own self defense. (He's also studied martial arts and has a black belt, but I forget which discipline.) He was doing it correctly, and your comments only show your own ignorance and bias on this subject.

I look forward to reading it. Just please be sure to explain how requiring a permission slip from the government still qualifies something as a right instead of a privilege.

I've never said that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be regulated. I support many forms of regulation to keep criminals from getting guns. However, I believe that the regulations should never be used to impose excessive burdens on law-abiding citizens or arbitrarily deny someone who would not otherwise be prohibited from exercising their rights. Systems like New York, or California that allow the police to arbitrarily deny law abiding citizens permits on the basis of their own opinions rather than clear and unambiguous facts are a violation of those citizens' rights.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I wanted to respond to DS separately from the OC/CC discussion, other than this comment:

The logic is very simple and straightforward (and has been upheld by several state courts). It is the right to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms includes the ability to carry them with you. As it is a right, and not a privilege, it does not require prior government permission in the form of a permit.

You don't need a permit in order to publish a newspaper or to petition the government. You don't need a permit to practice your religion or express your views. These are fundamental rights. The same would logically hold true for other fundamental rights such as the right to bear arms.

Like other rights, it can be subject to reasonable regulations as to the time and place, but you cannot outright ban the right or convert it to a privilege by requiring prior permission from the government. That at least suggests that some form of carry (either open or concealed) be available to citizens without requiring a permit. (In Vermont, the right to bear arms is interpreted as allowing any form of carry. In Wisconsin or Virginia, it only allows open without a permit.)

You forgot two other key points in the article:

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

As far as the proposed ordinance goes, I actually have issues with each of the points listed. Mr44 gave a good start to potential problems, but there are significant issues with the prohibition on people convicted of domestic violence that he didn't go into.

For example, the 4th Circuit recently ruled (PDF of ruling) that a state conviction for assault against a family member does not necessarily meet the legal criteria for "domestic violence". Why? Because in Virginia (where the case came from) they follow the common law definition of assault (as do about half of the other states), where the slightest touch can be considered assault, and you can sometimes be convicted without any contact whatsoever. The federal law that prohibits possession requires that physical force actually be used. What standard would Chicago require?

Also, people convicted of a gun offense would have to register? What sort of gun offense?

As for the one-a-month limit on registrations, the article mentions a 90-day grace period to register existing guns after the ordinance passes, but will they apply that limit during tha

 

KK, needless to say that it looks like this entire open carry debate is winding down, but I still think you're being extremely shortsighted. Or rather, you're still glossing over important issues as you're most focused on the "individual right" aspect:

First off, of course I know what the definition is. I was going by the points you raised. I already mentioned this above, but if you're using a inside waistband holster to open carry, you're largely negating the "quick draw" and "comfort" issues you brought up. Not only that, but the "Virginia tuck" seems to be a practice that just barely meets the definition of the law and leaves a lot up to interpretation. When you have to split hairs about security holsters, and tucking flaps of shirts, and how much gun is exposed, so on, just to defend the practice, I'd say the conclusion is clear.

Additionally, your friend could be the most responsible person in the world, but he can't control what others will do. Was your friend prepared to deal with someone who might follow him home to later break in and steal the shiny new $900 Sig Sauer he just walked around the mall with and displayed to the world? Or just wait by his car and knock him out? Was he prepared to be picked out of a crowd by both good and bad guys as someone who is going to take action if anything ever happened?

Was he prepared to defend himself in criminal or civil court if he actually had to shoot someone? With the safety class and state permit, you can show that you took reasonable steps under the law. If I was a civil lawyer, the first thing I would do is point out that he didn't even wait to complete the state licensing requirement on my way to prove that his behavior was willful and wanton during the wrongful death suit-hello 2 million dollar judgment.

I mean, try getting into a car crash without a driver's license, but explaining to the insurance companies and the authorities, "But officer, I'm a really good driver, I don't need a license..."

My entire point is that this isn't 1850's Wyoming territory. You might have an individual right to own and bear arms, but you have to be smart about it because there is a modern society around you. Instead of continually pushing the limit just to show that the right is yours, step back and engage in practices that make sense.

 

And I'd say that you aren't actually looking at the complete picture. Go and read again the links that I posted from Massad Ayoob, especially his points about discretion in your appearance and how people just don't notice it. For example, from the smae article:

The holstered guns were still in plain sight. They could be spotted by someone looking for them. But they did not draw the eye.

One evening I found myself stopping on the way home from the range at a supermarket that must have had a hundred people in it. I was open-carrying the dark Kimber 45 cocked and locked in a black basketweave Gordon Davis thumb-break holster on a matching Bianchi dress gun belt, with black polo and black BDUs. The old ?one of a hundred people will notice? prediction absolutely came true. The only person who showed indication of having spotted the big military auto pistol was a little girl, and that was probably because she was only a couple of feet away from me in the aisle, and her height put her at eye level to the gun.

I saw the little tyke?s eyes widen in alarm, and watched as she urgently grabbed her dad?s sleeve and began tugging. When he looked down, she wordlessly but vigorously pointed at the 45. I had made a point to wear my police badge clipped in front of the scabbard, and her dad spotted it at the same time he saw the pistol.

?Aw, it?s OK, honey,? I heard him tell her gently. ?He?s a po-lice.?

You still haven't addressed my key point about how people simply don't tend to notice an open carried pistol if the carrier is simply going about his business. Instead, you keep narrowing in on minutia that are not part of that central point, such as the specific type of holster used in one example given. The first example as a IWB. This example is OWB. How many people do you think would notice an ankle holster on someone wearing shorts (assuming that the person wearing it isn't an attractive woman with legs that go all the way up)?

In addition to that, would you be willing to argue that Massad Ayoob was only openly carrying in those two examples because he wanted to show off that he had a gun? Or would you concede that he was carrying for self defense? (Proving that it's not always meant as a means to show off.)

This is nothing more than a big "what if" scenario until you provide evidence of it happening. (And no, pointing to on-duty uniformed police officers who are attacked for their weapons doesn't count, because of the reasons that I previously outlined. Give just one example of a regular citizen open carrying who was singled out for attack because of his visible gun.)

 

KK, all those examples kind of prove my point, because they're all "what if" scenarios. My point is that if 9 out of 10 results are negative, then it just doesn't make sense to do it by a simple law of averages. So does the .1% chance that you might need a gun someday make it worth the potential to alarm people on a daily basis? To draw unwanted attention? To get confused with being a police officer or similar? To have potential additional liability? To get jumped or worse because you're displaying a weapon to everyone?

I'll take your entire post and just respond that I suppose it's correct "on paper." But when you walk around with a gun for all to see, then you're putting your fate in the reaction of other people. Why would you want to give up that control for such serious consequences? That's why, on both sides of the issue, there are practices that are smart and practices that are stupid. This is just a really stupid practice on the pro-gun side.

Why would you want to do it? Because it's your right? There's no force field that comes with the 2nd Amendment.

 

My point has always been that there are trade offs, but that it is ultimately up to the individuals to decide which trade offs to accept. It's not your place to decide for someone else whether or not the risks associated with open carrying are worth it or not.

For example, in Massad Ayoob's first example (his visit to North Carolina), his choice was to either open carry or not carry at all. He's a world-renowned expert in self defense. When faced with that option, his answer was unambiguous: he open carried rather than be unarmed. He has written extensively on the subjects of open v. concealed carry, and is extremely well versed in all of your arguments (in fact, he has made many of them himself, as he advocates concealed carry if you have a choice), and yet he chose open carry rather than disarmament. Why is that? Are you saying that he should have disarmed himself instead of open carry? Or would you prefer that he violate the law and conceal anyways?

That is the point that you are completely missing here in your attempts to call anyone who open carries stupid or foolish. Yes, you have some valid arguments, but that doesn't mean that your analysis fits every circumstance. People with far more experience on this matter have debated this very issue, and the only real conclusion that you can draw is that there are benefits and disadvantages to each position, so it is up to the individual to decide what risks they are willing to accept.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The fact that something is deemed a 'right' or a 'privilege' is largely irrelevent to my mind. The fact remains that firearms are instrinsically dangerous. The subject matter of the Second Amendment is quite unique in this regard. The activity of keeping and bearing arms carries with it significant risk of harm to the general public. On this basis, the 'right' to keep and bear arms must be balanced against public safety. To do this the exercise of the right must be regulated by the government. I don't see how the imposition of regulation somehow converts the 'right' to a 'privilege' if you accept that it is not in the public interest for the 'right' to keep and bear arms to be absolute. If it is not absolute, then there must be a mechanism for determining the limits and restrictions.

It seems to me that the only sensible way to regulate the activity of keeping and bearing arms is to treat the activity as being a serious potential public safety risk, much like operating a motor vehicle, requiring the person wishing to participate in this activity to satisfy certain criteria in the interests of public safety. If you want to call this process of satisfying a prescribed criteria "permission" then that is fine. I agree with you that the process should not be arbitrary and I also agree with you that a right isn't a right if it can be denied arbitrarily, but there needs to be a process and I think a permit system is completely appropriate given the public safety concerns that firearms represent.

 

Except I'm not deciding anything for anyone, just debating the topic. I agree with your point that in society, people are free to act as stupidly as they like, especially when rights are involved, but that doesn't mean it should be condoned-especially when alternatives are available. It goes back to my example of I'm sure someone could come up with a valid reason why they drive with their eyes shut. That one individual positive doesn't make up for the obvious negatives. Because it might not matter, well, until it matters.

 

I'm having so much fun watching this tennis match between Mr.44 and KK that I totally have forgotten what it was I was going to post, in the post that somehow got lost after I pushed 'post.'

 

The problem with this approach is that we don't treat any other fundamental rights the same way. Effectively, you are singling out the right to keep and bear arms for special treatment.

Guns in and of themselves are no more intrinsically dangerous than any other tool. I could take my Colt .45, load it with 45 ACP +P hollow point ammunition, set it on a table, and leave it there (with or without the safety on) for 100 years, and it would never hurt a soul. It takes a conscious act to use a gun.

How, then, is that any different from a knife, or a baseball (or cricket) bat? If we apply your same reasoning to other items that can be used as weapons, you would need to have a permit to go out to eat at a steak house, or to play a game of cricket.

You are forgetting about some of the other reasons behind the RKBA here. One of the other key problems with a permit system is that it gives the government a list of who has guns, which can then later be used to confiscate those arms from the population. This has happened many times throughout history, including in Germany and California.

Contrast that with how things work on a federal level now. The FBI runs NICS which every Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer is required to use to verify a purchaser's eligibility to buy a firearm. NICS gives only three responses: Proceed, Denied, or Delay/Hold (the latter being an indication that further verification is needed). Once a check is completed (resulting in a Proceed) and the FFL is given a verification number, the FBI is prohibited from maintaining a record of the transaction containing any personal identifying information. The FFL is required to maintain a record of the transfer for law enforcement to access if it is ever required. NICS checks are required in any sale between residents of two different states, or any sale performed by a FFL.

This system has resulted in over 100 million transfers since 1998 and about 700,000 denials. It has proven quite effective at keeping criminals from purchasing firearms on the open market. If the NICS check does not return any matching results (indicating no record of a legal prohibition for the individual), then it is automatically approved.

Do you not see the difference between the two systems? The background check-based system protects the privacy of the individuals buying guns while still establishing their legal eligibility to own/possess a firearm. The permit system, on t

 

I wanted to go back to one of DS's comments for a moment, relating also to my discussion with Mr44:

I mentioned earlier that open carry is based in the 2nd Amendment. For a little background on that, you can read the Court's opinion in Heller, which said:

Based upon this historical evidence and judicial history, it is clear that the right to bear arms requires the ability to carry a weapon on or about one's person "in defence of himself". The only two options for this would be