So the gun owner was within the law, but people were upset by his actions so he's the problem?
EVANSVILLE, Ind. (AP) — Police and a gun-rights expert say a man who caused a commotion by carrying a holstered handgun on his hip at Evansville's zoo was within his rights under Indiana law, which now largely prohibits local governments from limiting gun possession.
An Evansville police spokeswoman says staffers at Mesker Park Zoo were correct to notify the department, even though the man's actions weren't against the law.
A police report says the man "started causing a scene" when officers asked him to conceal the weapon and that officers escorted him out because he was frightening other zoo visitors.
You balk at being told to do something you aren't legally required to do, and you're the one causing a scene? Zoo officials were correct to notify police, "even though the man's actions weren't against the law"? Would they also be right if they called to report they'd seen a man driving a car? They escorted him out because his legal exercise of his rights frightened other visitors?
OK, OK, I get the point. We should use prudence when deciding whehter to conceal weapons or openly carry them. That's probably even more true in Indiana, where there is such widespread ignorance about how generous our gun laws are. Most people don't even think about Indiana being a "must issue" state when it comes to carrying permits, let alone the fact that a permit also permits open carry.
On the other hand . . . (Or would that be in the other hand?) The point of a concealed weapon is that the would-be bad guys don't know who's packing and who's not so might decide not to wave a gun around anybody. But I think that's more true in a state like Texas, where there's a gun culture resulting in a lot of awareness about guns being carried, rather than a state like Indiana
