Quantcast

Considerations Regarding the Concealed and Open Carry of Firearms

Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics and Training' started by Kleanbore, Jun 20, 2014.

  1. Berger.Fan222

    Berger.Fan222 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    TX
    One reason that I recommend against open carry is the propensity for anti-gunners to "improve" their story to cause the carrier more grief once they realize open carry is legal and the police won't do anything if they tell the truth that the gun remained holstered and the open carrier did not threaten them.

    Since they feel threatened by the mere presence of a gun in the hands of a citizen, some folks will exaggerate their account to whatever degree they think is needed to cause trouble for the open carrier. Who wants to mess with that nonsense?
     
    Creaky_Old_Cop likes this.
  2. Creaky_Old_Cop

    Creaky_Old_Cop Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Arizona
    And this HAS happened. Mas Ayoob related an incident where a pissed off ex lied and said her ex had threatened her and her new boyfriend with a pistol. The truth came out when his pistol was discovered at his home and he was at work, so her story fell apart.

    Another was one in which I was involved as the second responding officer, a man at a convenience store was accused of "pulling his gun" on another man at the store after the alleged victim was rebuffed in his efforts to panhandle. Video and audio from the store showed that the alleged suspect had never even put his hand near his holstered gun, and the only threat he made was that he would call the police.

    This is not super common...but common enough.
     
    Berger.Fan222 likes this.
  3. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Well, truth be told, I do very frequently make decisions, even pretty important ones, based on personal observations and judgment calls. Hard data is always nice to have but how many of life's decisions are we really able (or willing sometimes) to gather hard data on? I'd submit, less than 50%, and thats probably being generous. Heck I didn't even read Consumer Reports before I bought my last car!

    In my view the only hard data available to the gun carrier is whether it is legal in their location to OC or not. Beyond that it's anecdotes, perceptions, and judgment calls about whether that is a good idea or not.

    Perhaps the best we could get out of any such debate is to convince people to tack the clause, "I believe..." onto any statement they make about the long term effects of their OC choice. Based on their perceptions they've taken their best guess at a course of action. As we all do, every day.

    In the end, if they step out that door with their gun visible they really will never know if they just nailed one more spike into the coffin of gun rights, or just helped pry the door open another fraction of a degree.

    Similarly, if they keep it concealed they won't know for sure if they were preserving our rights, or forfeiting an opportunity to impress someone with the benign and even positive nature of defensive firearms carried in public.

    It is possible to demand that we wait for hard data to decide, and to be completely hogtied because no hard data can be had.
     
  4. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,204
    This is always possible, however the same thing might happen if you are carrying concealed and you have good reason to draw without actually shooting. Bad guys get on their phone before you do, call the police, make up a story, ditch their knives and sticks, and say you called them names - and pulled a gun on them.

    One good investment for anyone carrying openly or concealed is OC pepper spray so you have some intermediate means of force.

    And a sound/voice recorder, or even a body cam. The latter are getting cheaper. Failing one of these, you could dial 911 which will record everything any way, but this involves taking your eyes off badguys at least momentarily, so a sound/voice recorder that can be activated with one push off a button makes better sense to me.
     
  5. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,204
    Logic is intrinsic to the mental faculty of reason. It essential to defining what is considered reasonable.
     
  6. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,378
    Of course, under those circumsances, you would have had a basis for a reasonable belief that you had had no alternative.
     
    RPZ likes this.
  7. Schwing

    Schwing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,265
    Location:
    Layton Utah
    One issue that has really bothers me about the folks who open carry to make a statement is that it has created a sort of "Little man" label.

    &temp_hash=f3bb82a6320c61ad07a51a9897b973cf.png

    This picture really epitomizes what I mean. On the left, you have a heavyset guy and on the right you have the little guy. Both are "Obviously overcompensating for something". Ok, having said that, I am the guy on the left. I have been since I was about 9 years old. With a lifetime of weight issues, I already have enough hangups. Now, if I DO want to open carry, I feel like I will be perceived as the guy on the left... I don't want to be that guy.

    Now, this is my own mental hangup but, this type of OC really doesn't do much to further our cause.
     

    Attached Files:

    • OC1.png
      OC1.png
      File size:
      668.6 KB
      Views:
      43
  8. Creaky_Old_Cop

    Creaky_Old_Cop Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Arizona
    Okay...then don't look the part. He is big, okay, so what? Being big or short isn't the determining factor of whether or not you act like a wanker or not. This guy just looks like a slob. Hoop shorts, t-shirt that's ratty, and he's carrying a freakin' AR into the coffee joint to get attention...that's it. Not for defensive purposes, he is seeking attention. His buddy, yes, is thinner, and short...but he is neat in appearance. Buuuut....he's carrying a freakin SKS in a "low ready" position, posing for the camera, looking like an idiot who is seeking attention. Both of them are playing into the negative stereotype.

    I know more than a few bigger guys...and I am one of them now that I am retired...at 6'4" and 285lbs....but I don't go out looking slovenly, and I damned sure don't go into a coffee shop with any of my evil black rifles hung and slung to get attention.

    Don't be hung up about your size amigo and if you want to open carry, by all means do it...it's your right to...but do it low key and for the right reason, not just to get attention. Be neat in appearance and use your best manners and you won't play into that stereotype.
     
    Schwing likes this.
  9. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,563
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Well in that case you actually have threatened someone with a gun; and if that person claims that you did threaten him with a gun, he is being truthful. The question will be whether you will be able to justify your having committed the crime of assault (or whatever it's called in the jurisdiction -- in Alabama it's called menacing).

    Hogwash and gibberish. I defined "logic." You're talking in circles.

    Physiologically the brain has "circuits" that make the performance of logic processes possible, and appropriate use of those processes is necessary to the formation of meaningful conclusions. But the appropriate use logic still requires (1) that the processes be used correctly; and (2) that the processes be applied to accurate data.

    Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
     
  10. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,378
    Better answer the mine.
     
  11. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,122
    Location:
    GA
    I live in a state with open carry with a proper permit. However, apart from hunting, riots or civil disorders, or historical recreations, I don't really see the reason for open carry of longarms (other than routine transport--back and forth to the range, etc.) because it does not build good will for the 2nd Amendment among the populace. Those that are committed to the 2A will say right on bro, those on the fence about firearms aren't going to be persuaded as most of these people simply want to avoid conflict in society, and the anti's will take it (which it is) as a direct challenge. I doubt it would change minds or attitudes anymore than protest marches or stunts generally do.

    There was a fellow in TN that promoted controversy by his open carry of longarms that culminated with his loss of the ability to do so. Only that individual knows why it was done. Still some reasoned on a forum, just because he could meant that he should. Subsequently, TN still moved legislatively in the direction of greater freedom in carrying arms with no thanks to that individual.

    Those favoring a natural rights approach, argue that there is a natural right to be armed--and I agree. However, in a society, any right's enforcement by judges, juries, police, prosecutors, legislators, governors, is political. Without political support for your position, declaiming a right that will not be protected by TPTB, usually results in considerable bother for those individuals. That is why the Framers worried about the Bill of Rights being only a parchment barrier to governmental overreach if the people were not virtuous and supportive of such.
    Ultimately, maintaining your rights in a democratic society means exercising your rights in such a way to maintain significant political support--the short version is don't do things that "scare the horses" in every day life if you want to build support to rollback government obstacles on firearms such as suppressors.
     
  12. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,204
    Yes, but the end result, some story telling, and you could just as easily wind up being the one getting cuffed.
     
  13. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,204
    I see. So what are the principles and rules of logic as they apply to a person, their mind, reasoning? How does it apply to argumentaion? This was, I believe, the context in which GrampaJack used the term logic.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2017
  14. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,651
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Those rifles in the photo are too light, give them an M1 and BAR to hump around all day and see how quick that comes to an end.
     
    Schwing likes this.
  15. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,378
    I'm not sure about "just as easily", but there is the possibility.

    Of course, I could end up charged and convicted if I were to shoot someone.

    But I would neither draw nor fire except under a condition of immediate necessity.

    I fail to see how immediate necessity could cause me to carry openly.
     
  16. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,204
    I did not mean it would cause someone to carry openly. But that while someone carrying openly might be subject to being made out to be the badguy by some story embellishment, it could also happen to someone carrying concealed who found it necessary to draw but not shoot.
     
  17. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,378
    Among othet possible results.

    Or to someone who did shoot.
     
    RPZ likes this.
  18. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,563
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Providing an education in how to present a logical argument is outside the scope of what we can do on this board. It's also off topic for THR. And it's something folks should have learned in school -- but it seems a lot of folks actually don't.

    First of course one must remember that conclusions can be meaningful only when based on valid data, facts, and evidence. Useful logical argumentation requires identifying the data, facts, and evidence upon which the conclusions are based and establishing their validity, including identifying the sources of the data, facts, and evidence.

    In any case, the following are some resources which might help someone learn how to properly frame useful logical arguments:


    We will not be discussing the foregoing because doing so will further derail this thread and such discussion would be off topic for THR. Any discussions about the foregoing should be limited to private, off-line, communication.
     
  19. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,563
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Someone who drew his gun from concealment and threatened someone else is prima facie (on its face) the bad guy, having committed, prima facie, the crime of assault -- at least until evidence is examined and determined to establish that his act of threatening violence against another person was legally justified.
     
  20. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    One thing that would help this issue is if all gun rights supporters could come to an agreement that open carry is, first and foremost, a legitimate constitutional right, and one that's worth preserving. That would be common ground that could open a dialogue between the various factions. Simply dismissing open carry as a whole is, in my opinion, unreasonable and not in keeping with the ideals of constitutionalism, which, in addition to being a philosophical ideal, is the law of the land. That fact alone makes it important, because if one law can be ignored then so can the others, such as freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to keep and bear arms in its entirety.

    Even if we don't agree with open carry, even if we think it's a neckbeard move through and through, it's in everyone's interest to defend it as a basic right, even if they themselves do not feel inclined to exercise that right. Anyone who cares about free speech and the like should care very deeply about open carry, if for no other reason than the fact that it's the law.

    Everyone who owns a gun should also care about it from a pragmatic point of view, assuming they care about being able to transport that gun. Even if the current privileges regarding transporting a firearm in a vehicle are preserved, which is already suspect in several states, there are practical reasons why a person might want or need to transport a firearm on foot, or while using public transportation. One example would be a person who could not afford to drive, which means they need to walk or take the bus in order to even buy the gun in the first place, then to practice with it at the range. Currently, that is illegal in my state, even if the gun is in a bag. There is no provision whatsoever for carrying a long gun, and even a permit holder cannot take any gun onto a bus, even if it's in a bag unloaded.

    Another reason a person might need to openly carry a firearm is while hunting. Let's say your hunting area is divided by a two lane county road, or multiple roads, requiring you to walk for a ways on the road, or otherwise be forced to backtrack several miles, get your vehicle, and drive to the next area, by which time the game you were pursuing is long gone, the light or weather has run out, etc. Likewise, a rancher on the southern border might have fields separated by a few miles, and he might access them by ATV or horseback, or even on foot if the distance isn't too great. Should he not have the right to carry an "assault rifle" to protect himself from the drug cartels that are no doubt smuggling drugs through the area? And should he not have the right to carry the rifle on public lands while tending his cattle?

    As mentioned previously, there is also the need to protect oneself from predators. It's awfully hard to conceal a S&W 500 while hiking in Rocky Mountain National Park, or a similar place where you have lots of people mixing with highly domesticated grizzly bears. Just for perspective, it's common in Canada to see people packing sawed off shotguns for protection against bears.

    Also mentioned previously, it's difficult to impossible to conceal the weapon we would like to carry, vs. the weapon we're relegated to carry by the state imposed necessity of keeping it concealed. Why should we be relegated to carrying a micro pocket .380 just because we cannot effectively conceal a full sized 9mm? Especially considering that virtually every police agency in the country has found that full size, high capacity, full caliber sidearms are necessary for their officers to effectively defend themselves. Can you imagine the outrage if all law enforcement personnel were mandated to conceal their weapons, relegating them to low capacity .380s? And yet this same mandate is imposed upon civilians. Even in states where open carry is legal, we all know that does not mean that it's legal legal, as evidenced by the long list of people charged with disorderly conduct and the like, despite the fact that they were well within the law.

    Furthermore, as absurd as it might sound to some, there is even reason to carry long guns in public, namely as a preventative measure against terrorism. It works well for Israel in any case. Years ago, I always heard people say, "Well Israel is a unique case; they have to do it because of their terrorist problem, and we don't have that problem here." Well, folks, we've arrived. Will widespread open carry of long guns prevent all terrorist attacks? No, but it will certainly complicate things for the terrorists, and bring an end to the days when mass shootings were like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Lastly, at the end of the day, the Constitution and Second Amendment have as much to do with self defense as they do with hunting. The highest purpose of the Second Amendment has always been to challenge a tyrannical government, even and especially if that government is our own. If we do not have the right to be armed in public, that could throw a wrench in any plans to assemble an armed resistance. Armed assembly and protest is a necessary step in the progression of any revolution. Revolutions don't just happen. They begin as protests, which turn into skirmishes, which then turn into an organized resistance.

    So, in conclusion, if we can all simply agree that open carry is a right worth preserving, then maybe we can find some common ground and agree on an organized, thought out plan of action aimed towards preserving what we have and gaining back what we've lost. This status quo where open carriers as a whole are pariahs to gun rights lobbies and firearms media isn't helping anyone. Instead of arbitrarily denouncing it as a whole, they should be steering it in the right direction.
     
  21. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,204
    Yes, we know that. Or should.

    I was actually drawing a parallel with Berger.Fan222's post at 6:37 a.m CST concerning a potential liability to open carry, as it could also occurred with concealed carry.
     
  22. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,563
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Sigh!

    But you miss the point. Your example is not parallel or comparable. In the hypothetical example outlined by Berger.Fan222 in post 51 and the real examples outlined by Creaky_Old_Cop in post 52, the guns were not actually drawn. In your hypothetical example, the gun is actually drawn.
     
    Creaky_Old_Cop likes this.
  23. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,204
    I see. Again.

    So let's say goodguy is faced with two badguys; one has a knife. As bgs move towards gg he draws his handgun at a detemine point. As soon as bgs see this, bgs turn and run. No shots fired, gun reholstered.

    Gg calls the police, bgs call the police. Gg says what happened. Bgs say gg called them _________, and pointed a gun at them. As it happens, one of the bgs got their call through before gg did.

    Police search bgs. Uh oh, no knife.

    Same context. Do you get it now?
     
  24. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,563
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Hogwash! It's not the same context at all, because in your hypothetical your good guy actually did pull his gun.

    Do you get it now?
     
  25. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,378
    The subject under discussion has to do with open vs concealed carry.

    You have introduced another, entirely different subject--that of the display of a firearm in a defensive situation.

    We have discussed that here:

    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/brandishing-and-when-can-i-draw.731200/
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice