Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

[ETR3(SS)]

What do ya think of this one? A sign of things to come from an awakening public? Also note the classification of the weapon in the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_protesters_guns

[Thomen]

What do ya think of this one? A sign of things to come from an awakening public? Also note the classification of the weapon in the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_protesters_guns

Well, the guy in question did not break any laws and apparently did not come close to Obama.

Nice gun, though. :03:

EDIT: Our gun-toting brethren showing up to Town Halls are comprised of sick ****s and racists.

:nope:

[nikimcbee]

Hate, obama; love guns....but this seems to be a serious lapse of personal judgement. It gives the admin ammo to say: "look, they are all gun toting kooks.":shifty: If this guy is legit, that's not the message I'd want to send. Seems like it would be more of a legal hassle too.
The thought did cross my mind that he could be one of those acorn plants:hmmm:

[Thomen]

Hate, obama; love guns....but this seems to be a serious lapse of personal judgement. It gives the admin ammo to say: "look, they are all gun toting kooks.":shifty: If this guy is legit, that's not the message I'd want to send. Seems like it would be more of a legal hassle too.

Personally, I do not necessarily agree with having weapons near an elected official. You are correct that it can back fire. However, even the Secret Service did not think enough of it to widen the security zone. :hmmm:

The thought did cross my mind that he could be one of those acorn plants:hmmm: Maybe, you can't be sure these days.

[mookiemookie]

I don't see why he'd feel the need to bring a gun to a political discussion. It sends a bad message and creates a dangerous air around the proceedings that can only encourage the nutbars.

[SteamWake]

I don't see why he'd feel the need to bring a gun to a political discussion. It sends a bad message and creates a dangerous air around the proceedings that can only encourage the nutbars.

Perhaps this was his very intent. :yep:

Like the union folks going into the town hall meetings itching for a fight.

If the conservatives were not a 'threat' they wouldent bother so I figure were doing something right.

[mookiemookie]

Perhaps this was his very intent. :yep:

Like the union folks going into the town hall meetings itching for a fight.

If the conservatives were not a 'threat' they wouldent bother so I figure were doing something right.

Politics at gunpoint. Hooray! Somalia here we come!

[SteamWake]

Politics at gunpoint. Hooray! Somalia here we come!

Once again you totally misconstrued my point.

My point is that maybe that guy took a gun, and assault weapon at that only to create a contriversy like this one. In other words he had ulterior motives.

Im not advocating in fact Im warning against violent screaming pushing matches instead of frank discussion.

The lib's want us to look like a bunch of raving lunitics and how better to 'prove' that than have some guy with a gun show up. Hell Im supprised he dident have a Bible in the other hand just to complete the steriotype.

[mookiemookie]

Hell Im supprised he dident have a Bible in the other hand just to complete the steriotype.

He'd have to be wearing the "eagle crying superimposed over the burning World Trade Center" shirt to complete the look for me.

[Stealth Hunter]

He'd have to be wearing the "eagle crying superimposed over the burning World Trade Center" shirt to complete the look for me.

With John 3:16 on the back of it and the word's "NEVER FORGET".:haha:

[Platapus]

I wonder if the guy brought an assault weapon or just a semi-automatic weapon that resembles an assault weapon?

Sorry, just my old creaking soapbox about the political misuse of the term "assault weapon" :damn:

[ETR3(SS)]

He brought an AR-15. Semi-auto all the way. But again the media labeled it an assault weapon. I feel the same way Platapus.

[August]

I wonder how many cross hairs were centered on that guys cranium at one time. I'm betting an average of three and a max of five.

[Zachstar]

It is not these small balled people that concern me. They just want to be in the news and are in no way a danger to the president.

What I am concerned about is some nutjob that uses the attention given to the gun trotter to try to do something harmful. The attention given to the trotter took away attention from other potential hazards.

And you gun lovers ought to be chastising this guy. If something were to happen do you realize that the video of these people packing will be used in a massive political attack against the second amendment in state and federal governments?

[August]

And you gun lovers ought to be chastising this guy. If something were to happen do you realize that the video of these people packing will be used in a massive political attack against the second amendment in state and federal governments?

Yeah like Doolittles raid provoked the Japanese to attack at Midway.

[GoldenRivet]

"change" is growing imminent.

the silent majority is awakening and is no longer silent.

everything that is wrong with America has been authorized by congress... and most of us are realizing that.

he promised change

and i think it is coming soon... very soon.

we must remember, Revolution is sometimes a necessary thing

[Thomen]

Well, if the right wingers want to keep up with the left wingers, they better hurry up.

After all the panic and BS that was talked and reported about right wing extremists, the FBI put an American on its Most Wanted Terrorist List.


Now, in the wake of the Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security warning Americans to beware of pro-life veterans’ potential terrorist tendencies, the FBI puts its first domestic terrorist on its Most Wanted Terrorists list – with, among others, Osama bin Laden, the founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and the first American to be charged with treason since 1952.


Well, and guess what his politcal alignment happens to be? :D

And this terrorist happens to be a radical left-wing eco-terrorist.




http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sargent/2009/04/21/left-wing-extremist-joins-osama-fbi-most-wanted-list

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

[GoldenRivet]

all of that aside.

the political divisions in this nation are stronger and steeper than they have been in quite a long time

[Zachstar]

Yeah like Doolittles raid provoked the Japanese to attack at Midway.

Its called Hysteria. If something bad happens it makes it easier for the nuts on either side to pass insane laws.

Case in point the laws after 9/11.

[Zachstar]

"change" is growing imminent.

the silent majority is awakening and is no longer silent.

everything that is wrong with America has been authorized by congress... and most of us are realizing that.

he promised change

and i think it is coming soon... very soon.

we must remember, Revolution is sometimes a necessary thing

Have you ever faced an M1 national guard tank?

I will say the same thing I say to all the nuts in my opinion who dream of armed revolution. The British had crappy muskets. (Even going as far as gutting a group of breechloading riflemen a design that refined could have won the war) The National Guard has tanks to fight against nutjobs thinking they are "liberating" the populace.

There is no such thing as revolution. This is NOT the colonial era.

BTW your posts gives ammo to anti-gun nuts in my opinion. Just saying.

[GoldenRivet]

zach,

take my post however you will.

i have not injected my opinion.

I only pointed out the growing section of society which is dissatisfied with congress.

i didnt say "armed revolution"

i just said revolution...

in a democracy such as our own, revolution comes in the form of ballots... not "crappy muzzle loaders".

I'm not delusional. i said nothing about fighting anyone... nor did i once mention tanks, or guns.

i dropped the "R" word - and your psyche ran to thoughts of fighting against tanks.

viva la revolution! vote in 2010

[Bubblehead Nuke]

I have always liked this quote:


This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.


Care to guess who said it?

[Aramike]

I have always liked this quote:


This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.


Care to guess who said it?Lincoln. Which was loosely ironic.

[roman2440]

This is a local story for me, living in the phoenix metro area so I've got a different perspective on this.

1) He was not the only armed person at this meeting. He was the one the media focused on, but there were dozens others also armed (although not quite as explicitly as he was). The person mentioned in particular I believe was the only one with a rifle (the others mostly just had pistols).

2) His weapons were in plain sight and not held in any kind of threatening manner. In Arizona law that is legal. You are allowed to carry a weapon in plain sight as you wish (with a couple of minor exceptions) as long as it is in plain sight.

3) They were there to protest against obama and to take up their message of 2nd amendment gun rights. Perhaps not the best way of doing it, but I applaud them for having the balls to do so. I also think that by doing so and there not having been an incident shows just what gun rights advocates have been saying all along, that you are in no more danger by allowing guns then you are if they are banned.

Trust me if there was someone there who planned to harm the pres it would be the person you didn't know was armed. If you go back in history to all of assassination attempts do you really think if guns had been banned that they would have been stopped/caught? Do you think a gun ban would have stopped lee harvey oswald? Would it have prevented booth from shooting lincoln? Or even if you want to talk about something a bit more modern, how about the assassination attempt on Reagan's life?

The common thread through all of these is that the shooter concealed his weapon prior to the attack. No gun ban is going to stop that.

[Zachstar]

That is not the issue here. The issue is the attention is on HIM and not the potential one for harm.

As for balls. If you have to come packing that much heat you've got little tiny ones in my view. And seeing as even a basic understanding of the states gun laws and the second amendment meant he could not be touched. What makes that "brave"?

He was not brave he was a media whore in my opinion. Saw the brewhaha over the pistol packing protester and wanted to oneup him in front of the cameras.

[August]

Its called Hysteria. If something bad happens it makes it easier for the nuts on either side to pass insane laws.

Case in point the laws after 9/11.

None of those armed citizens were in any way threatening or aggressive. If simple lawful possession is enough to cause hysteria then they're gonna do what they're gonna do anyways whether people carry firearms in the vicinity of public officials or not. Better to let them get hysterical and maybe overplay their hand than slowly squeeze the RKBA out of us.

[SteamWake]

The attention given to the trotter took away attention from other potential hazards.

Which again is the most likely reason for him being there in the first place. To avert attention away from the subject at hand.

It worked wonderfully.

What was the reason for the protest again?

[Zachstar]

The thugs diddn't "overplay" their hand when they rammed through the Patriot Act at record speed through congress.

Never NEVER underestimate what hysteria can do to a populace. Failure to understand that ended up with insane laws and insane policies enacted before. (And no not just in the Bush years)

Of course hopefully the worst that will come of this is every little balled copycat will want to come packing to show what a so called badass second amendment defender he/she is.

[Zachstar]

Which again is the most likely reason for him being there in the first place. To avert attention away from the subject at hand.

It worked wonderfully.

What was the reason for the protest again?

Youve got my head spinning on this one.

Did he take attention away from healthcare or did he create controversy to stir up 2nd amendment talk?

[SteamWake]

Youve got my head spinning on this one.

Did he take attention away from healthcare or did he create controversy to stir up 2nd amendment talk?

Both actually thats why its so brilliant.

[August]

The thugs diddn't "overplay" their hand when they rammed through the Patriot Act at record speed through congress

By "thugs" you must mean the majority of Congressional Democrats who voted for the act right?

[1480]

My two sheckles on this whole thing: the rifle is being used as a "sign." Nothing more nothing less. Kind of like PETA with their enlarged photos depicting an act of cattle slaughter. Wont faze some but may shock others. He wasn't breaking any municipal, state or federal laws that I am aware of. As to what his message was, not sure, but I have a hard time of interpreting "modern" art too.

[Aramike]

The thugs diddn't "overplay" their hand when they rammed through the Patriot Act at record speed through congress.

Never NEVER underestimate what hysteria can do to a populace. Failure to understand that ended up with insane laws and insane policies enacted before. (And no not just in the Bush years)

Of course hopefully the worst that will come of this is every little balled copycat will want to come packing to show what a so called badass second amendment defender he/she is.I'm still waiting for an American to cite an instance where the Patriot Act directly affected them and violated their civil rights.

The Patriot Act has turned into the biggest leftist straw man argument in history.

[nikimcbee]

My two sheckles on this whole thing: the rifle is being used as a "sign." Nothing more nothing less. Kind of like PETA with their enlarged photos depicting an act of cattle slaughter. Wont faze some but may shock others. He wasn't breaking any municipal, state or federal laws that I am aware of. As to what his message was, not sure, but I have a hard time of interpreting "modern" art too.

I'll play devil's advocate; so you don't see him as a potential threat? (I'm curious of your opinion since you're a po-lice officer):D

[Tchocky]

Not illegal, doesn't make it a great idea though. It just doesn't send a peaceful message.
So in short, bring all the guns you like, but expect to be asked why.

[SteamWake]

Not illegal, doesn't make it a great idea though. It just doesn't send a peaceful message.
So in short, bring all the guns you like, but expect to be asked why.

By Golly I agree with Tchocky on something... except I would say "Please leave the guns at home or at least in the car. It just sends the wrong message."

[Tchocky]

Aye, SteamWake, I just say bring them anyway in order to avoid the tiresome "this ain't illegal, I know the law, you don't!" argument sure to follow :DL

Bringing a gun to protest does exactly the opposite to what's intended - I take the protester a lot less seriously.

[Aramike]

Aye, SteamWake, I just say bring them anyway in order to avoid the tiresome "this ain't illegal, I know the law, you don't!" argument sure to follow :DL

Bringing a gun to protest does exactly the opposite to what's intended - I take the protester a lot less seriously.Maybe you do, but guess what - that protester got tons of more coverage than someone who's just holding a sign ... considering that the idea of protest is to start a dialogue, his tactic has worked.

Most people aren't foolish enough to equate the lunatic fringe with the merits of any argument - meaning, we're all talking about how nutty this guy is while at the same time, we are all in some way thinking (and talking even) about gun rights.

[SteamWake]

Do not deny Steamwakes instincts... proven correct again.


During the segment on CNN, Rick Sanchez said, "the more we look into this, the more it appears that it was really planned." Hancock concurred: "Oh, it's more planned than you think." In addition to scheduling the interview, Hancock had also informed the local police force.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/right-wing-radio-host-sta_n_262559.html

[SteamWake]

:woot:Bumpity cause its relevant

[1480]

I'll play devil's advocate; so you don't see him as a potential threat? (I'm curious of your opinion since you're a po-lice officer):D

Sure do perceive as a threat, if he was in my neck of the woods..... ole boy would have not made it three steps out of his car before he would become a new member of Chalkie 2016.

[Neptunus Rex]

He brought an AR-15. Semi-auto all the way. But again the media labeled it an assault weapon. I feel the same way Platapus.

The media (and gun control/ban proponents) incorrectly considers any gun that automatically chambers the next round an "assault" weapon, including hand guns, both sliding bolt and revolvers.

[Schöneboom]

In addition to "exercising their rights", these guys were most certainly sending another political message. IMHO, the subtext of greeting the President with guns goes something like, "We the People are still capable of overthrowing our tyrannical government -- by force if necessary."

However, I think an insurrection by riflemen could "liberate" at most a few isolated patches of the country, esp. given government infiltration of the militias. The essential ingredients for a violent Second American Revolution are (fortunately) still missing: i.e., a charismatic leader who can pull together all the anti-government factions, and a high-level military conspiracy supporting a coup d'etat.

Having studied the Spanish Civil War in detail for several years, I'd definitely say it is not the scenario that any sane person should hope for. But the increasing polarization of left vs. right -- and the coarsening of political debate into name-calling -- could easily lead to a spiral of violence & repression.

Let us hope that cooler heads prevail.

Ciao,
Wayne

[August]

IMHO, the subtext of greeting the President with guns

But they didn't even get near the President let alone greet him.

[Schöneboom]

Pardon me, I didn't expect anyone to take that phrase quite so literally. I think it's understood that these men were outside the venue and brought their guns out esp. for the occasion -- and we may assume the Secret Service informed the President. So it was not strictly necessary that they be seen directly by him for their message to get across.

[JHuschke]

Well someday someone is going to be carrying a weapon and he probably isn't going to stand there with it strapped on his shoulder.

[SUBMAN1]

Check this guy out - http://www.frommers.com/blog/?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a3ec3ac40-db8a-4d10-a884-acf9ccad0879Post%3acad21037-04b6-415b-b41b-4838402e1e4e&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending

Maybe he should have asked the question about how many people got killed at that event before drawing such illogical conclusions?

-S

[Steel_Tomb]

Hmmm... ok.

I understand that you chaps across the pond love your shiny guns. However, I really fail to understand why you would just carry one around in public? If your going to go shooting at a range or keep it for personal use then I have no problem, but to go armed with lethal weapons casually along the street just seems a wee bit weird! Is it to stroke your ego "hey look I have a big gun". It just makes things quite uneasy, I mean imagine if some nut job had such a rifle and decided to go empty a magazine? In a public place? Its mad, quite simply. Its been seen many times when mentally unstable people have gone on a rampage with guns, I'm sure you all remember the Virginia tech killings... IMHO there isn't enough restriction on the flow of arms in the USA... far more thorough background checks should be used, and anyone with a criminal record should simply be banned from owning such weapons. That was a political rally, with women and children present most likely... personally I find it COMPLETELY unnecessary to carry loaded weapons to such an event, especially as the President was in attendance to it!

I understand some may not like Obama, maybe its his policies or maybe some white folk can't get over the fact his skin is a different shade to theirs.

This isn't a rant against gun ownership in the US, I personally think we should have some limited use of guns in the UK for personal protection or sport. However, I completely disagree with anyone who thinks its safe or appropriate to carry a gun in public or to a public event. :nope:

[mookiemookie]

Hmmm... ok.

I understand that you chaps across the pond love your shiny guns. However, I really fail to understand why you would just carry one around in public? If your going to go shooting at a range or keep it for personal use then I have no problem, but to go armed with lethal weapons casually along the street just seems a wee bit weird! Is it to stroke your ego "hey look I have a big gun". It just makes things quite uneasy, I mean imagine if some nut job had such a rifle and decided to go empty a magazine? In a public place? Its mad, quite simply. Its been seen many times when mentally unstable people have gone on a rampage with guns, I'm sure you all remember the Virginia tech killings... IMHO there isn't enough restriction on the flow of arms in the USA... far more thorough background checks should be used, and anyone with a criminal record should simply be banned from owning such weapons. That was a political rally, with women and children present most likely... personally I find it COMPLETELY unnecessary to carry loaded weapons to such an event, especially as the President was in attendance to it!

I understand some may not like Obama, maybe its his policies or maybe some white folk can't get over the fact his skin is a different shade to theirs.

This isn't a rant against gun ownership in the US, I personally think we should have some limited use of guns in the UK for personal protection or sport. However, I completely disagree with anyone who thinks its safe or appropriate to carry a gun in public or to a public event. :nope:

I couldn't agree more.

[Steel_Tomb]

EDIT: double post sorry!

[SteamWake]

Did you guys not read my post?

It was a publicity stunt, simple as that.

Mission accomplished. :salute:

(Triple post deleted, forums went a little crazy on me)

[August]

I mean imagine if some nut job had such a rifle and decided to go empty a magazine? In a public place?

If someone is contemplating such an act they aren't going to be dissuaded by gun laws. If one decides to do this in Arizona then there are likely to be armed folks around who could put a stop to him. That doesn't happen in a society that does not allow it's citizens the right to bear firearms. In such situations they are basically sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

Its mad, quite simply. Its been seen many times when mentally unstable people have gone on a rampage with guns, I'm sure you all remember the Virginia tech killings... I'm glad you brought that up. There was already a campus wide ban on the possession of firearms, but that did not stop him. It did ensure however that his victims would not be able to.

[Steel_Tomb]

Then perhaps for an instance like that, persons under a certain age (say 25?) should not lawfully be able to personally own their own weapon. They should be able to use weapons owned by family members i.e. their father for either personal protection in the home or for sport whilst accompanied by an adult able to take responsibility for them. Exceptions could be made in very specific circumstances, like retired military personnel who could lawfully own a weapon under the "age limit". Such restrictions don't infringe on your "right to bear arms" as you call it, as access to weapons for protecting yourself or your family is still there but would hopefully prevent you from getting guns into a campus. Its quite likely that the tragedy at Virginia tech may not have happened if that lad hadn't been able to purchase a gun from a local store using such restrictions.

I'm not trying to turn this into a gun law thread. Just wanted to show what kind of alternative views you guys over there could take on gun ownership and what is and isn't acceptable

[August]

Then perhaps for an instance like that, persons under a certain age (say 25?) should not lawfully be able to personally own their own weapon. They should be able to use weapons owned by family members i.e. their father for either personal protection in the home or for sport whilst accompanied by an adult able to take responsibility for them. Exceptions could be made in very specific circumstances, like retired military personnel who could lawfully own a weapon under the "age limit". Such restrictions don't infringe on your "right to bear arms" as you call it, as access to weapons for protecting yourself or your family is still there but would hopefully prevent you from getting guns into a campus. Its quite likely that the tragedy at Virginia tech may not have happened if that lad hadn't been able to purchase a gun from a local store using such restrictions.

I'm not trying to turn this into a gun law thread. Just wanted to show what kind of alternative views you guys over there could take on gun ownership and what is and isn't acceptable

Well I see what you're getting at but actually the VT killer bought his weapons in violation of the law.

Again though if just one of the other students at VT had his weapon on him at the time of the shooting that massacre might have been nipped in the bud.

To paraphrase Erasmus: "In the land of the disarmed the man with one gun is king."

[Steel_Tomb]

Well I see what you're getting at but actually the VT killer bought his weapons in violation of the law.

I didn't know that, I thought he had purchased it normally.

[August]

I didn't know that, I thought he had purchased it normally.

Yeah, those with a history of mental illness are not supposed to purchase weapons. Basically he lied on his application but the government doesn't check medical records because of right to privacy issues.

[ETR3(SS)]

However, I really fail to understand why you would just carry one around in public? If your going to go shooting at a range or keep it for personal use then I have no problem, but to go armed with lethal weapons casually along the street just seems a wee bit weird! Is it to stroke your ego "hey look I have a big gun". As far as I know Arizona is the only state that has open carry laws. And without looking it up I think in about half of the US you can carry concealed with a permit. So we don't have the masses running around out here with guns strapped up and down their sides in public, just to clear that up.

It just makes things quite uneasy, I mean imagine if some nut job had such a rifle and decided to go empty a magazine? In a public place? Its mad, quite simply. Its been seen many times when mentally unstable people have gone on a rampage with guns, I'm sure you all remember the Virginia tech killings... Anybody is capable of killing another person, anybody.

IMHO there isn't enough restriction on the flow of arms in the USA... far more thorough background checks should be used, and anyone with a criminal record should simply be banned from owning such weapons.I'll let this one slide a little since you are from the UK and most likely not fully informed of all of our gun laws. However, the problem isn't the need for more restrictions, but to enforce what laws are already on the books. If you are a felon in this country you lose your right to bear arms and the right to vote. Your criminal record stays with you for your whole life, whether you are a felon or a misdemeanor.

That was a political rally, with women and children present most likely... personally I find it COMPLETELY unnecessary to carry loaded weapons to such an event, especially as the President was in attendance to it!1. Who said the weapons were loaded? 2. Personally I would not bring my child to a political event unless they were old/smart enough to understand the political machine. 3. Women are equal to men nowadays. 4. the police and Secret Service were there...armed themselves.

I understand some may not like Obama, maybe its his policies or maybe some white folk can't get over the fact his skin is a different shade to theirs. This is probably a true statement, but the fellow carrying the AR-15 was black.

Then perhaps for an instance like that, persons under a certain age (say 25?) should not lawfully be able to personally own their own weapon. They should be able to use weapons owned by family members i.e. their father for either personal protection in the home or for sport whilst accompanied by an adult able to take responsibility for them. For the record the legal minimum age to purchase a hand gun is 21. Depending on the state you can be as young as 16 to purchase a shotgun or rifle. However to purchase that firearm under the age of 18 you must provide proof of a firearm safety class having been taken(at least here in Wisconsin). This is a little OT but why should a 18 year old be allowed to die for his country and not be able to buy a drink in the bar. Same concept with your minimum age argument.


Exceptions could be made in very specific circumstances, like retired military personnel who could lawfully own a weapon under the "age limit". This doesn't work at all. If you retire from the military over here you did at least 20 years in.

Such restrictions don't infringe on your "right to bear arms" as you call it, as access to weapons for protecting yourself or your family is still there but would hopefully prevent you from getting guns into a campus. I dont personally plan on living with my parents until I reach the "minimum age" so I can own a firearm to protect myself and my property.

[Platapus]

As far as I know Arizona is the only state that has open carry laws.

States permit open carry without requiring the citizen to apply for any permit or license: (11)

Alaska
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
South Dakota
Vermont
Kentucky
Virginia

States permit open carry with restrictions: (13)

Utah
North Dakota
Minnesota
Iowa
Tennessee
Mississippi
Georgia
Indiana
Maryland
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Massachusetts

States prohibit open carry: (7)

New York
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Arkansas
Texas
Illinois
Florida

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090818/which-states-allow-open-carry-us-list.htm

For the states that have concealed carry laws, cf http://www.moccw.org/map.html

[ETR3(SS)]

Thank you for that info Platapus. :up: