By Dean Weingarten
Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-
Sea Bears is a successful restaurant serving sea food in Ogden, Utah. They have made national news by their policy of open carry for restaurant employees and guests. The policy brought them attention, and they have been successful enough to expand to larger quarters. The family owned restaurant signed a lease for a new space at Union Station. Union Station is home to four museums, including the John M. Browning Firearms Museum and the Utah Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum. This appeared to be a good fit for an open carry themed restaurant.
The management of Union Station decided to put up signs banning open carry on August 19th, just a few days before Sea Bears was to open their restaurant there. At the time, there was speculation that Union Station might not have the authority to ban open carry at the venue. It appeared to be a public space owned by the City. That was correct.
Union Station seems to have violated the law when it put up the signs. The Ogden City Attorney, Gary Williams, read about the signs and went to investigate. From standard.net:
When Williams read about the Union Station ban in the Standard-Examiner, he decided he’d “better go look at the sign.” He said he then removed the signs out of fear they may run afoul of state firearms laws.
Williams stopped short of saying Sea Bears employees and customers can now open-carry in Union Station, saying “I don’t think I’m ready to comment on that.” But he did say Union Station and Ogden City aren’t regulating open-carry guns.
Utah, as with most states, has a state preemption law to prevent cities, counties, water districts, and any other political entities within the state from making their own laws regarding firearms. If political sub-units of the states were allowed to do so, the right to bear arms would be extremely hard to exercise, as it would be difficult to know when a person was breaking the law or not. Most County and City boundaries are not marked, and simply moving across a street could mean the difference between legally following the law and being subject to arrest.
The management of Union Station had no legal authority to infringe on the right to bear arms by banning open carry.
The Secretary of the Union Station Foundation, says that they are “not against the Second Amendment”. He simply is against people exercising their right in a way the lets other people know that they are doing so. From the Standard Examiner:
If people want to express their belief in the right to bear arms, Trentelman said he hopes they’ll at least be sensitive to the fact that some people are frightened by their open display.
“I don’t have any problem with concealed-carry,” he said. “If you’re going to do it, do it. It’s legal. But people who insist on open-carry, I don’t think it’s about protection — it’s about making a statement.”
Mr. Trentelman is mostly correct, I think. Open carry is strong, symbolic, protected, political speech. It is protected by both the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution. Thus his *generous* and *tolerant* opinion that it would be alright if people exercise their rights, as long as it is in such a way that no one actually knows that they are doing so, is incredibly offensive and intolerant to anyone who thinks about what he is suggesting.
That people who are going to a gun museum would be scared of people actually carrying guns, seems a bit weird. In fact, people who legally carry guns are far more law abiding than the general population, and Utah is one of the safest states in the union.
What is particularly bizarre is that the management of Union Station would sign a lease with a restaurant whose signature appeal is the open carry of guns, then attempt to ban the open carry of guns there, just before that business was to open its doors.
That goes beyond offensive to irresponsible, and in this case, illegal.
City Attorney Gary Williams is to be commended for his quick action. The signs came down before anyone had to resort to lawyers and courts.
Both Union Station and Sea Bears benefited from the publicity. It is likely that many visitors to Ogden will take a meal at Sea Bears, and visit the Museums. Many Second Amendment supporters will be openly exercising their rights.
From numerous, consistent Internet polls, which measure intensity of support, it is clear that active supporters of open carry far exceed those who are offended by it. The numeric advantage of Second Amendment supporters is about 3-10 to 1.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Pragmatic Logical Statement….
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” actually means, Any Law FOR or AGAINST the second amendment is” ILLEGAL” and is actually a crime against the Constitution in the form of Sedition or a Traitor’s act. Both have a sentence of Imprisonment or worse. Anyone attacking the Constitution should be very careful because they are playing with the devil here.
>>>> Old Marine
Excellent news… If I ever manage to get to Utah again, I’d love to go visit them.
But no. Open carry is not always political speech. It is an effective and comfortable way to carry a gun. That some people ALSO make it a political activity, and some people get their nickers in a wad about it, is beside the point. That some people may, or may not be “frightened” by it is not my problem. They are totally responsible for how they “feel” about anything.
Exactly! In this country you have the right to be offended, afraid and you have the right to speak out about it. You do NOT have the right to let your irrational fears infringe on MY rights. If your fears are so debilitating I suggest you seek professional help.
Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution. Concealed carry is not. https://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be banned. “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)… Read more »
“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does not state how the arms should be carried.
@Chuck N, “Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution. Concealed carry is not.” is wrong inspite of what the one sentence, out of context, Heller quote. But just for the sake of debate, what power of authority the federal government have to ban concealed carry, in your opinion?
The Second Amendment means what the Framers of the Second Amendment and those who voted for it thought it meant in 1791. When a state law is challenged, the relevant date changes to when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, 1868. At neither time was there a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment or any other part of the Federal Constitution. Given that concealed carry is not a Federal right, and certainly not a fundamental right, prohibitions on concealed carry in Federal territory or Federal enclaves is subject to rational basis review, all other things being equal. The Federal… Read more »
The First Amendment does not state that human sacrifice is prohibited or that libel or counterfeiting is illegal. It doesn’t have to. Only an idiot thinks the law works that way.