One of the most discussed subjects pertaining to the carrying of handguns is that of whether to carry openly or concealed. In some jurisdictions, citizens may carry openly, with or without a permit depending upon the laws. In many others, citizens may only carry concealed. When citizens have a choice, they have a decision to make, and the pros and cons of each may vary widely according to the environment, the purpose, and other considerations. It is a personal choice, and it should be an informed one.
This subject has sometimes become quite controversial, partly due to some recent, highly publicized events. However, the issues have been discussed here on THR in numerous threads over the past several years.
With help of some of the staff and other members, we have endeavored to summarize the salient points of the many discussions that have taken place on the subject over the last several years, and to present them in a balanced and objective way.
We will start with what should be the least controversial aspect of the subject.
Physical Considerations
Then, there are points to be pondered about which method might prove best for effective self defense, and in what circumstances.
Tactics
This part of the discussion pertains to the use of the handgun by citizens other than sworn officers or security personnel for the purpose of lawful self-defense.
There are obviously a number of considerations to be taken into account by the citizen who has a choice. The list of “tactical” pros and cons of concealed vs. open carry will vary greatly according to the situation and the environment.
The reaction of other citizens to the sight of persons carrying firearms is also something that varies according to locale.
Legal, Political and Social Considerations
It is essential for everyone who has a firearm to understand the laws in his or her jurisdiction, or in any other jurisdiction in which he or she may travel, as they relate to the carrying of guns.
It is also important to keep in mind the facts that laws can and do change, and that such changes can be brought about by the influence of public opinion on elected legislators.
The laws that govern the carrying of firearms are enacted by elected legislatures. They have evolved over time, and they can be expected to continue to change. Even the Second Amendment itself is subject to amendment or elimination under the terms of Article V of the United States Constitution. That process too falls under the purview of elected legislators.
Although decades of screen fiction may give the impression that most everyone in the “Old West” carried one or two belted revolvers in town, the fact is that in many towns, local ordinances prohibited citizens from carrying firearms openly. Such prohibitions became much more widespread, and were extended to limit the unregulated possession of handguns and/or concealed carry, during Reconstruction in the Southern states and later in the Eastern states.
By the middle of the twentieth century, the lawful carrying of concealed handguns by ordinary citizens was severely restricted in most parts of the country. In 1986, there were only nine states in which law-abiding citizens were guaranteed the right to carry concealed, either with a permit or without. In twenty-five other states (classified as “may issue” jurisdictions), permits could be issued, but such issuance was subject to the discretion of law enforcement officials, and in many cases that meant that ordinary citizens without influence were effectively denied the right to carry. In sixteen states, concealed carry was prohibited altogether.
Things have changed markedly to the better in the last twenty-eight years. “May Issue” states are now a distinct minority, though ordinary citizens who live in many areas of those states actually have little realistic chance of getting a permit.
All but six states now have at least some provision for lawful open carry. Thirty of those do not require a permit (but some of those do prohibit having a loaded handgun in an automobile unless the carrier has a permit). Some states do allow counties and municipalities to restrict open carry.
It is very important to note that a legal right to carry a weapon does not give a citizen who is not a sworn officer the right to carry on private property, should the owner choose to prohibit the practice.
The important right to carry a firearm in public, and in particular on private property, is more fragile than many might like to believe. Laws can and do change, for the better and for the worse. Even the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not graven in stone. Backlash against actions opposed by large numbers of the general populace can and has been troublesome. Responsible gun owners should keep that in mind and understand that large portions of the population do not necessarily agree with their positions.
Here are some pertinent considerations on this issue:
It is essential that gun owners take into account the sensitivities of others. Those “others” are voters, customers of businesses, and proprietors of businesses, and their opinions can matter a great deal to those who value the right to keep and bear arms.
One other thing: in some areas in which open carry is perfectly lawful, law enforcement officers who are not knowledgeable of the open carry laws are sometimes encountered. An encounter with one of those officers is not the time to get into an argument about the Second Amendment. The officer, however incorrect, should be treated courteously and with respect. The issue of rights can be dealt with later in a safe venue.
Empirical Data
While there are large areas of the country in which both concealed and open carry is lawful, the practice of either is really quite infrequent in most locales.
For that reason, and because there are so many other variables involved, there is no way to use actual data as a reliable basis either for prediction or for cause and effect analysis. As in any other area in which a paucity of experience exists, other methods mist be used to support the making of decisions.
There are, however, three data points that gun owners should probably take into account:
One other factor that is really worth noting stands out: In spite of dire warnings to the contrary, the increase over the last several decades in the prevalence of the lawful carrying of firearms by citizens who are not sworn officers has failed to bring about the oft-predicted return to the proverbial “Wild West”. In fact, in jurisdictions in which records have been made public, the incidence of violent crimes (an important distinction) committed by permit holders is far lower than that of the general population. That is somewhat off-topic for the discussion at hand, but it may prove helpful in discussions with others.
In Summary
There is no “one size fits all” answer to the question of whether to carry a firearm openly or concealed. The “right” answer will depend upon many things, including local customs and prevailing opinion, purpose, attire, and environment, to cite a few things.
There are many persons in our society who oppose the carrying of guns by private citizens. There are ways to influence public opinion positively, and ways to bring about a negative result. Demonstrations do not always work to our advantage, and they can have and have had unintended consequences.
This post by JohnKSa addresses some important thoughts about how to go about influencing public opinion in a positive way.
Acknowledgement
The above represents a distillation of numerous contributions made by many of our members and our staff over the last several years. Frank Ettin, GEM, and JohnKSa have assisted in putting it together.
We hope that it proves useful.
This subject has sometimes become quite controversial, partly due to some recent, highly publicized events. However, the issues have been discussed here on THR in numerous threads over the past several years.
With help of some of the staff and other members, we have endeavored to summarize the salient points of the many discussions that have taken place on the subject over the last several years, and to present them in a balanced and objective way.
We will start with what should be the least controversial aspect of the subject.
Physical Considerations
- Some handguns, such as large frame revolvers, long-barreled revolvers, and large semiautomatic pistols, do not lend themselves to concealed carry. A citizen with a need to carry such a firearm has little practical choice but to carry openly.
- Concealed carry may be inconvenient, impractical, or difficult for motorcycle riders or equestrians, on tractors, or in other situations.
- Some kinds of clothing, such as athletic and hot weather attire, make concealed carry difficult, uncomfortable, or impractical.
Then, there are points to be pondered about which method might prove best for effective self defense, and in what circumstances.
Tactics
This part of the discussion pertains to the use of the handgun by citizens other than sworn officers or security personnel for the purpose of lawful self-defense.
- A openly carried weapon usually takes less time to draw and present than a pistol that is carried concealed. Well-known trainer Rob Pincus sets the difference at about 0.3 seconds. Note that to unsling a rifle and load the chamber takes much longer than the time required to draw a pistol.
- Another factor that is often discussed is that of deterrence--the likelihood that the sight of an openly carried firearm may deter a would-be mugger, robber, or thief. Although no objective data are (or can be made) available to substantiate it, subjective reasoning and common sense would suggest that, given the choice, criminals who notice the presence of open carriers in an establishment would tend to choose a different time or place for wrong doing. However, such deterrence is not absolute. Criminals can and do choose to rob convenience stores and other establishments in which the clerks or managers are known to be armed. Additionally, there is no way to deter an individual, such as a mass killer, who intends to die in the commission of a crime. And finally, violent criminal actors under the influence of mind-altering substances should not be expect to behave in a rational manner. The only effective prevention is the effective use of force.
- Open carry can remove one element of flexibility from the defender in terms of his or her response options. Should a citizen be among persons suddenly surprised by one or more violent criminal actors, an open carrier who is noticed will likely have no choice but to try to act immediately, and will likely not be afforded the options of remaining uninvolved or of biding his time until a better opportunity to act presents itself, as would a person carrying concealed.
- Because of its market value and its intrinsic value as a weapon, an openly carried firearm may serve as an attraction to those who would take the gun by force. Situational awareness can only partially mitigate that risk. The psychology of vigilance is well studied, and no one can maintain constant vigilance against threats from 360 degrees. While a properly designed retention holster and proper training can reduce the likelihood of a “gun grab” of the kind in which uniformed officers have been victimized, they cannot protect the carrier against injury from an unseen assailant with a blade or bludgeon.
- On the other hand, while there are few or no readily available quantifiable, objective data to prove it, it would be reasonable to assume that, in one of the rare environments in which numerous persons carry openly, potential criminals would be much less inclined to risk trying to surprise and attack one open carrier in the presence of others. Elmer Keith mentioned that in Sixguns several decades ago when he discussed the carrying of guns in Helena, Idaho. Casual observations in Israel would also tend to support that hypothesis rather strongly.
- However, deterrence is likely to be far less effective, and the vulnerability of the open carrier much higher, in an extremely crowded urban environment---visualize Michigan Avenue or Wacker Drive in Chicago when thousands of people are running for their trains. When an armed citizen is in an area in which large numbers of people move rapidly into and out of what is generally known as “Tueller Distance” all the time, no firearm, whether concealed or carried openly, would be of much immediate use as a defensive weapon, because there would not be anywhere near enough time to bring it into play in the event of a surprise attack by one or more violent criminal actors. In the case of an open carrier, it is likely that the gun would simply serve as an attraction.
- The facts that police officers have had their guns taken and that many officers have in fact been shot with their own guns is noteworthy, but it is not entirely relevant to the question of open carry by others. Police officers do have the duty to pursue and apprehend criminals, and other citizens who do not are therefore not as highly exposed to that particular risk.
There are obviously a number of considerations to be taken into account by the citizen who has a choice. The list of “tactical” pros and cons of concealed vs. open carry will vary greatly according to the situation and the environment.
The reaction of other citizens to the sight of persons carrying firearms is also something that varies according to locale.
Legal, Political and Social Considerations
It is essential for everyone who has a firearm to understand the laws in his or her jurisdiction, or in any other jurisdiction in which he or she may travel, as they relate to the carrying of guns.
It is also important to keep in mind the facts that laws can and do change, and that such changes can be brought about by the influence of public opinion on elected legislators.
The laws that govern the carrying of firearms are enacted by elected legislatures. They have evolved over time, and they can be expected to continue to change. Even the Second Amendment itself is subject to amendment or elimination under the terms of Article V of the United States Constitution. That process too falls under the purview of elected legislators.
Although decades of screen fiction may give the impression that most everyone in the “Old West” carried one or two belted revolvers in town, the fact is that in many towns, local ordinances prohibited citizens from carrying firearms openly. Such prohibitions became much more widespread, and were extended to limit the unregulated possession of handguns and/or concealed carry, during Reconstruction in the Southern states and later in the Eastern states.
By the middle of the twentieth century, the lawful carrying of concealed handguns by ordinary citizens was severely restricted in most parts of the country. In 1986, there were only nine states in which law-abiding citizens were guaranteed the right to carry concealed, either with a permit or without. In twenty-five other states (classified as “may issue” jurisdictions), permits could be issued, but such issuance was subject to the discretion of law enforcement officials, and in many cases that meant that ordinary citizens without influence were effectively denied the right to carry. In sixteen states, concealed carry was prohibited altogether.
Things have changed markedly to the better in the last twenty-eight years. “May Issue” states are now a distinct minority, though ordinary citizens who live in many areas of those states actually have little realistic chance of getting a permit.
All but six states now have at least some provision for lawful open carry. Thirty of those do not require a permit (but some of those do prohibit having a loaded handgun in an automobile unless the carrier has a permit). Some states do allow counties and municipalities to restrict open carry.
It is very important to note that a legal right to carry a weapon does not give a citizen who is not a sworn officer the right to carry on private property, should the owner choose to prohibit the practice.
The important right to carry a firearm in public, and in particular on private property, is more fragile than many might like to believe. Laws can and do change, for the better and for the worse. Even the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not graven in stone. Backlash against actions opposed by large numbers of the general populace can and has been troublesome. Responsible gun owners should keep that in mind and understand that large portions of the population do not necessarily agree with their positions.
Here are some pertinent considerations on this issue:
- Social and political attitudes toward firearm ownership in general, and toward open carry in particular, vary widely among different sections of the country. In some areas, guns are a generally accepted part of life. In others, there is a prevailing general opinion among many people that firearms ownership should be limited to something loosely called “sporting purposes” . In still others, there is a strong undercurrent of anti-gun sentiment, so strong that even the innocuous pointing of a finger by a child is somehow believed to be connected to "gun violence". This difference is reflected in the varying attitudes among politicians.
- Polls indicate that in some areas, a substantial number of people are uncomfortable in the presence of firearms, and that many prefer to not patronize businesses in which guns are carried. This has led some companies, including large corporations, to oppose the bringing of guns onto their premises, purely for business reasons. Whereas firearms carried concealed remain “out of sight and out of mind”, the sight of openly carried firearms has in some instances served as the stimulus to arouse controversy and negative reactions.
- While it has been hypothesized that open carry will acclimatize people to the practice and result in higher acceptance of the idea, no objective experiments have been conducted to substantiate that thesis. On the other hand, negative reactions to open carry demonstrations have brought about both the enactment of state laws and local ordinances banning open carry and of decisions by businesses that had not previously done so to come out against and even prohibit the carry of firearms on their premises.
It is essential that gun owners take into account the sensitivities of others. Those “others” are voters, customers of businesses, and proprietors of businesses, and their opinions can matter a great deal to those who value the right to keep and bear arms.
One other thing: in some areas in which open carry is perfectly lawful, law enforcement officers who are not knowledgeable of the open carry laws are sometimes encountered. An encounter with one of those officers is not the time to get into an argument about the Second Amendment. The officer, however incorrect, should be treated courteously and with respect. The issue of rights can be dealt with later in a safe venue.
Empirical Data
While there are large areas of the country in which both concealed and open carry is lawful, the practice of either is really quite infrequent in most locales.
For that reason, and because there are so many other variables involved, there is no way to use actual data as a reliable basis either for prediction or for cause and effect analysis. As in any other area in which a paucity of experience exists, other methods mist be used to support the making of decisions.
There are, however, three data points that gun owners should probably take into account:
- Limited data samples indicate that more than half of all violent criminal attacks involve more than one attacker. This is relevant to the discussion of how how to respond to a threatening situation, what to do after the first shots, when to re-holster, and whether it realistic to rely on situational awareness to prevent an attack.
- Many self defense instructors, and that refers to instructors who address the larger field of self defense and not just the shooting of firearms, believe that in many if not most environments, open carry is not really very advisable.
- Corrections officers report that it is quite common to observe prisoners practicing martial arts, including disarming, choke-holds, and the slashing of tendons, in the prison yards. Not every violent criminal actor is untrained.
One other factor that is really worth noting stands out: In spite of dire warnings to the contrary, the increase over the last several decades in the prevalence of the lawful carrying of firearms by citizens who are not sworn officers has failed to bring about the oft-predicted return to the proverbial “Wild West”. In fact, in jurisdictions in which records have been made public, the incidence of violent crimes (an important distinction) committed by permit holders is far lower than that of the general population. That is somewhat off-topic for the discussion at hand, but it may prove helpful in discussions with others.
In Summary
There is no “one size fits all” answer to the question of whether to carry a firearm openly or concealed. The “right” answer will depend upon many things, including local customs and prevailing opinion, purpose, attire, and environment, to cite a few things.
There are many persons in our society who oppose the carrying of guns by private citizens. There are ways to influence public opinion positively, and ways to bring about a negative result. Demonstrations do not always work to our advantage, and they can have and have had unintended consequences.
This post by JohnKSa addresses some important thoughts about how to go about influencing public opinion in a positive way.
Acknowledgement
The above represents a distillation of numerous contributions made by many of our members and our staff over the last several years. Frank Ettin, GEM, and JohnKSa have assisted in putting it together.
We hope that it proves useful.
