On June 26, 2024, Mark W. Smith, who goes by the handle “Four Boxes Diner” on social media, gave a webinar hosted by The Federalist Society. One thing The Federalist Society (FedSoc) has never done is host a webinar or upload a video supporting our right to openly carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense (Open Carry). FedSoc once uploaded a video where one of the panelists, Nelson Lund, raged at the Supreme Court for saying in its 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, that America’s 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment. That isn’t the same thing as posting a video where the panelists support Open Carry.
It isn’t unusual for lawyers to hate Open Carry, considering the nature of their profession and the type of people who become lawyers. But Professor Lund at least acknowledged that the Heller opinion held that Open Carry, not concealed carry, is the right guaranteed by the Constitution. All of the lawyers for the so-called gun-rights groups in their concealed carry lawsuits told judges that the Heller opinion said the exact opposite of what it actually said. Never forget that lawyers are professional liars. They are paid to lie on behalf of their clients.
David H. Thompson, who represents some of these so-called gun-rights groups that oppose Open Carry in their lawsuits, was hosted by FedSoc in a podcast. I called in and asked him to give me his “one best case” in support of his position that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. His answer was State v. Reid, an antebellum case cited in District of Columbia v. Heller. My response was, “Reid said concealed carry is evil.” With that, lawyer Thompson flipped his lid and went into a rant. He demanded that I be muted, which I was. The FedSoc edited out his tantrum before making the audio of the podcast public. I don’t know why it was edited out, lawyer Thompson frequently goes on a rant in public.
Be that as it may, I hadn’t been able to pin Mark W. Smith of Four Boxes Diner’s position on Open Carry. He had frequently said that “assault rifles” are arms protected by the Second Amendment, but lots and lots of concealed carriers say the same thing while at the same time asserting the mutually exclusive position that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. The right is to keep and bear arms. If one does not have the right to carry the arm, then he does not have the right to possess it.
So I joined Mark W. Smith’s webinar and posed the only concealed carry questions via the moderator, who relayed every other question to him except mine, of course.
My second question in the webinar was posed just before the webinar ended.
Much to my surprise, Mark W. Smith responded to my post.
The replies to his post hammered his opposition to Open Carry.
He then made a video in opposition to Open Carry and uploaded it to YouTube.
Much to my great surprise, nearly every comment of the hundreds posted in response to his video hammered him for opposing Open Carry. The lion’s share mentioned that the Second Amendment protects the carrying of long guns in public for the purpose of self-defense. It appears that I’m not the only person who owns a rifle or shotgun. Even a few concealed carriers took umbrage to his opposition to Open Carry.
An added bonus is that another FedSoc frequent flyer lawyer, Randy Barnett, came out of the closet in his opposition to Open Carry.
If the FedSoc, an organization that was influential in the judges President Trump appointed, and the other so-called gun-rights groups aren’t reigned in, then you may very well wake up and find that you do not have the right to keep and bear any arms, except for small, concealable handguns, carried concealed. And you will find that pretty much every place is a place where it will be a crime to carry your concealed handgun.