However, there was also an instance in Virginia, I believe, where several guys were in a restaurant OPEN CARRYING which was the only way to LEGALLY CARRY in an establishment which served alcohol, IIRC. Some one got upset with them, not because they were acting threatening or anything. As a matter of fact, if I recall the story, they had been there for quite some time before some imbecile got upset and decided to contact the police.
Yes, but the open carry movement claims they do so with the intent of educating people. I'd think they'd take a situation like that to educate both the person calling the police and the responding officers, if necessary.
Furthermore, what good would it do to bring charges against the person calling? What if they just didn't know any better? Does punishing make them feel any better about our cause, or will it just fuel more resentment?
How do we know if we're punishing malice, or just ignorance? How does that make us better than them?
Here in Georgia, we have quite a few transplants from places like New York and New Jersey. Those people can be forgiven for thinking something's amiss when they see non-uniformed folks carrying.
Frankly, if someone wants to open carry, they should expect to be the center of attention. Many of them do it for exactly that reason. Well, if they're going to put themselves in that role, then their responsibility is to act as reasonable, temperate ambassadors of the gun culture.
To do otherwise (and I've seen this happen) is to reinforce the "militant" stereotype many people have regarding gun owners.
We're still fighting a war of public perception, and the opinion of the panicky soccer mom at table four matters.
Fortunately, his CCW was been suspended by the state and I hope permanently.
I'm the last one to defend Mr. Embody's actions. I really am. But I can't help but wonder if the state made an unethical, and potentially dangerous, mistake in that case.
The question may justify a thread of its own...