Clayton Cramer opposes open carry

Clayton Cramer, a Second Amendment scholar and someone who is generally pro-gun, appears to oppose the idea of peaceful citizens exercising their rights by openly carrying guns:

Do you know how to upset people, really fast? Force them to confront the reality that many people own and carry guns. It isn't even like open carry has some great advantage over concealed carry when it comes to self-defense. It's a bit quicker to draw, sure, but if a random spree killer is deciding who to attack first, guess who's first? The person who is obviously armed.

Open carry may make you as an individual somewhat safer from criminal attack, because it encourages those criminals who don't have a death wish to go look for an easier target. Concealed carry, however, makes everyone safer--because the criminal doesn't know if his intended victim is going to draw a gun--or perhaps a bystander is going to do so.

Open carry is constitutionally protected, as the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled in the decision In re Brickey (Ida. 1902). But that doesn't mean that this is the most appropriate or most polite way to carry a gun.

Don't be rude. Don't be stupid.

UPDATE: It strikes me that there is an analogy to gay men who feel the need to have sex in public view (something that I have blogged about before). Just about every adult knows that there is homosexual sex happening out there. Most Americans aren't approving of it, but at least it isn't something that they have to see. It's an abstraction. When you walk down a public beach in Rhode Island, or along the Russian River in California, and there are guys having sex, it is no longer an abstraction. It's a reminder that someone wants you to see what they are doing, or at least doesn't care that it might not be what others want to see.Now, some of the goal of both groups--public sex and open carry--is desensitization. They are hoping that if people see this happening on a regular basis, that it will no longer be shocking, and eventually, everyone will get used to it. There are people for whom this is probably true, and it is part of why television shows make a point of including gay characters--to get everyone used to it, so that it is no longer shocking. But for most people, public sex and open carry--and especially in a setting where there are children present--it has the opposite effect: it infuriates, enrages, or (at best) annoys.

UPDATE 2: I keep getting emails, so let me clarify. You have a right to open carry in Idaho and many other states. I would not for a minute propose that this should be illegal. But if your actions drive people that are neutral about guns into the enemy camp, should you do it?

Read his full blog post here. The comparison between gay public sex and open carry seems particularly inapt -- there is no enumerated constitutional right to public sex (gay or otherwise), while there is an explicit right to keep and bear arms. Open carry has historically been the quintessential manner of exercising such rights. Indeed, for most of the population, the right to lawfully carry concealed is a relatively recent development. Americans did not exchange our open carry rights for concealed carry rights; concealed carry is simply an additional mode of exercising our rights.

Mr Cramer says that open carry "infuriates, enrages, or (at best) annoys", especially when "there are children present". Would Mr. Cramer also oppose, say, a protester exercising his First Amendment rights who displays a sign that "infuriates, enrages, or (at best) annoys"? Would he say that such exercise of free speech rights only hurts the free speech movement? That protesters shouldn't be "rude" or "stupid" and should avoid exercising their rights "especially in a setting where there are children present"?

As Mr. Cramer notes, Idaho citizens have the right to openly carry. A right not used will soon become a lost right. The idea of citizens peacefully and openly exercising their right to arms shouldn't be controversial for anyone who supports the right to keep and bear arms.