No mention of self-defense against Antifa? And yet the picture is from Oregon? Really? This article feels biased to me. A simple google search shows that self defense may be a part of the reasoning as well. Just google "antifa attack right wing protesters". And you will find this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/ . The Washington Post is not a right-wing paper, but yet the headline says that antifa attacked "peaceful" right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley. I'm not claiming that intimidation may not be at play as well, but to write a whole article without mentioning Antifa or self-defense blows my mind.

Expand full comment

Carrying any kind of weapon in public requires a heightened degree of responsibility for the use of that weapon. Stand Your Ground laws and other types of "self-defense" laws wrongfully put the risk of use on the unarmed. We have given over to the State the responsibility to defend and protect us from our fellow citizens in public, retaining the right to defend our "castles." Ordinary citizens rarely carry weapons in populated public places for the sole purpose of defending oneself against a well-grounded belief in potential violence that the citizen rightfully believes the state's agents will be unable to prevent. The true purpose, as Neier articulates, is to intimidate those who would disagree with you. At best, open carry is a kind of preemptive self-defense to threaten others into silence and fear: don't f*{k with me, or I might just f*[k you up. I'm like a wild animal: volatile and unpredictable.

Expand full comment

We seem to be living in the age of redefinition. Mr Neier wants us to believe that the first amendment is only about “peaceful persuasion” not actual free speach! He doesn’t appear to like the 2nd amendment or guns for that matter (Heller & Brunei we’re both about very basic American rights).

He doesn’t like the GOP, right wingers. He uses the lynch dog whistle and skirts the violence of the Black Panthers. He doesn’t mention Antifa, or the BLM (pigs in a blanket) riots. Violence is the real problem, not guns. If Soros’ money is free speech, why not guns?

Several years ago, I went to a small, peaceful Tea Party demonstration at the capital, and was shocked to see so many guards armed with automatic rifles - the only victim of gun violence on January 6th was poor Ashley Babbitt.

Mr Neier is just a partisan, with an authoritarian agenda.

Expand full comment
Jan 6, 2023·edited Jan 6, 2023

The fact is that brandishing a firearm is today a crime literally everywhere in the USA. The simple act of carrying a firearm in a proper manner (not using it to threaten) does mean the person is brandishing a firearm just because that person is taking part in a protest.

This author is saying that carrying a firearm during a protest is brandishing a firearm -- it is not. Let’s not conflate the two.

To be clear, if during a protest, someone brandishes a firearm (ie, displays the firearm in a manner intended to intimidate), they should be immediately arrested...period.

But if that person is simply carrying a firearm in a proper manner as they exercise their right of free association and free speech, doing so does not turn carrying the firearm into brandishing the firearm. The fact that someone looking at the person wearing a firearm somehow feels threatened because they’re in the presents of someone wearing a firearm is completely irrelevant.

Expand full comment

Atlhough I have a lot of respect for the author's efforts on behalf of free speech rights, and I wish I could agree, I think there is an important point not addressed here. We now have a violent far-left in this country that believes it has the right to silence speech it doesn't like, with lethal violence if necessary.

In some places such as the pacific northwest the local prosecutors actually take the side of the violent far-left. That is the crucial context that must be understood. Brandishing a weapon at a demonstration is not necessarily an act of intimidation, it is often an act of self-defense that makes free speech possible.

Expand full comment

Point of clarification. Heller case was about the right to own a gun for self-defense and the Bruen case dealt with concealed carry licensing.

The issue seems to be open carry.

Expand full comment

"Prominent right-wing leaders have remained silent about the fact that some of their followers are bringing weapons to protests."

Some of their followers. How widespread is this, and is it just limited to the "Right Wing"? Please give examples of both.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment