Jason of Fish Or Man writes about his recent arrest in Spokane, WA.

I’ve read (though, unfortunately, I didn’t bother saving a link) the accusation that Jason was “spoiling” for this fight, that the “auto ballet” in the beginning of the story serves as evidence that he was just some jerk looking for trouble.

While I don’t think he was trying to start this fight (that is, I don’t think he was actively trying to get pulled over), the content of some of his other open-carry posts does make me wonder whether he’s truly carrying out of a desire for self-defense or a desire to start a legal battle. My conclusion is that it just doesn’t matter. Whether he’s carrying because he’s glad he has the right to carry a weapon, or he feels endangered when he doesn’t have the weapon close at hand, or even if he was carrying the weapon purely in hopes that some gun control nut will start an argument, he has the right to carry that weapon.

If I felt like proving a point about First Amendment rights, I could go stand in front of the Alabama courthouse that recently had its Ten Commandments monument removed and read the Ten Commandments aloud at the top of my lungs, and the First Amendment would protect me. The Constitution doesn’t care if I’m standing there exercising my rights because I believe my religion requires it. The Constitution doesn’t care if I’m exercising my rights out of a desire to protest the removal of the monument. The Constitution wouldn’t even care if my entire purpose was just to annoy people. Rights aren’t dependant on intentions.

Assuming Jason’s story is true (I believe it is, but with the internet, you never know.), the way he was treated is completely outrageous. (Though, as Steve, of Hog on Ice points out, arguing with cops can only lead to problems. Even if you’re sure you’re right, it’s better to take the ticket and then contest it later.) Reading his blog makes it obvious he’s not the type of guy I’d really like to spend a lot of time with (possibly because the encouraging-arguments-in-public thing reminds me of myself, when I’m not actively reminding myself not to be a jerk (I try, but fail miserably on occasion…)), but that doesnt’ change whether or not he has rights. Even if his story isn’t true, I worry about the amount of hostility that people receive just for being gun owners. When the write to bear arms is infringed, when only “special” people (read: cops and soldiers) can have weapons, we’re one step closer to a totalitarian state.

—–

Mostly unrelated: Joe Huffman has “Just one question” for you:

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

He seems pretty confident that the answer is either “No,” or “I don’t know.” In either case, he points out that if one can’t prove that restricting certain freedoms makes people safer, then there’s no reason to restrict that freedom.

I think he makes a good point.