Quantcast

Considerations Regarding the Concealed and Open Carry of Firearms

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

  1. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,358
    Many people see pictures in the news and assume that ordinary citizens are walking around carrying long arms in Israel, but in fast, moct of them are carried by off-duty military personnel who have been ordered to carry them as part of their duty.

    Comfort can be a personal thing, but the ability to get the arm into action in a lawful use of force encounter is a real issue.

    Another factor to keep in mind is the most of the advantages of a rifle over a handgun as they relate to effectiveness would have little meaning in most justified self defense scenarios. The old A, O, J, and P equation makes a rifle no more useful than a handgun, and that's after the defender has brought the thing into action.
     
  2. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    I completely agree that carrying a sidearm is, practically speaking, more valid than carrying a rifle. However, just because the need to carry a rifle is less than the need to carry a pistol does not mean that the carrying of rifles is invalid. This isn't an either or scenario. We can have both options at our disposal and choose one or the other, or both, as we see fit. Perhaps the need to carry rifles is small, but at the same time there's no practical reason to be found against carrying a rifle. In layman's terms, it don't hurt nothin' and it might help somthin'.

    This is one situation where instead of asking why, the better question would be why not? Or, more importantly, what good reason would we have to prohibit someone from carrying a rifle if they wanted to? I can't think of any good ones. In the interest of full disclosure, I personally have no intention of ever toting a rifle around with me, and I sincerely hope that conditions in this country never cause me to have to reevaluate that stance. HOWEVER, if I see someone carrying a rifle in public, what harm does that do me? Not only does it not do me any harm, it has the potential, however small, of being beneficial to me in the unlikely event that such force might be needed.

    A close parallel to this is carbines in squad cars. Honestly, how often do police use their carbines to dispatch a threat as compared to their sidearms? Not very often. However, there's no downside to them having the carbine in their vehicle. Since there's no downside, along with a potential need, no further justification is needed.
     
  3. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Congress can't outright skirt the Second Amendment. All they can do is pass laws which then will get challenged under the Federal court system, and eventually brought to the Supreme Court of the United States, who's job it is to determine whether a law does or does not violate the Constitution. If the SCOTUS decides it does, then they can essentially strike down what is a bad law. If they decide that it doesn't. Then it doesn't. That's how the system works. That's how the founders built it.

    Not if the body that the Constitution established to make such decisions says it doesn't, or doesn't the way you think it does. The Supreme Court has never, once, said that a law which prohibits persons from going about in public with an openly carried firearm violates the Constitution. Therefore, and until they DO say so, it doesn't in practice. So you're going to get no traction trying to convince people who love the rule of law (which, again, doesn't mean quite what you're saying) that they must agree with open carry, because that's what YOU say the Constitution means. The people who the Constitution says get to decide haven't agreed with you, and their opinion actually counts.

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find any state or federal laws restricting carrying of firearms that were passed by decree (with one or two exceptions, like maybe federal property rules). Laws have been passed following the exact legislative process set out in the Constitution. The fact that you THINK the 2nd Amendment grants you a fundamental right to openly carry a firearm in public doesn't actually mean anything. The power that the Constitution itself set up to make such determinations has never agreed with you, so you don't have any leg to stand on.

    All you're doing is mis-characterizing our legitimate legislative process with "rule by fiat" and "by popular public opinion." And that's silly talk.

    Hmm. Again, you've said that, but not showed or proved that it is so. Has the private citizens' carry of long guns reduced terrorism there? Do you know? Has it reduced the death toll? How do you know? Are our situations actually analogous? Explain in detail. Remember, Israel does not operate as simply every citizen goes about with a rifle, at will.

    Harden public targets? Seriously? Man, I can't begin to express how unlikely I see that...and have I ever tried here!

    Oh come on, yes it is. That's goofy. Men won't even carry a soft shoulder bag everywhere. Heck, few women do anymore. It's a pain. Constantly set down, picked up, banging against things, left behind. Plus...nobody cares where a purse is pointing. You'd damned well better be aware of where the muzzle of your rifle is pointing at ALL times. It isn't the same as a holstered handgun. Few long guns are drop-safe, and accidentally sweeping someone with the muzzle of your slung rifle, loaded or not, will get you tossed off of pretty much any rifle range in the country. How is this any better when you're on the friggin' subway, or at the mall?

    Let's explore weapon retention....like to get strangled from behind with your own rifle sling? ... sigh, never mind. If you can't envision the problems with this idea, me explaining them to you isn't probably going to make a dent.

    I'll just say that my most considered opinion is that your honest view on that would change within a month, were you do actually do it. You need to keep control of that weapon. You need to keep strict muzzle discipline at all times. You need to protect it from banging against objects and having an accidental discharge. All of these things a holster does for you, along with keeping both hands free for actual living.

    You know.... cops are issued AR-15 carbines mostly these days. Why don't they carry them everywhere they go? They get into a LOT more physically dangerous situations than any of us defensive minded citizens do. But the rifle lives in the trunk or the cruiser rack. Why? Because it's NOT a good thing to have to deal with hanging around your neck except for the few times a year when circumstances indicate it could be needed. It is not a good thing to have in the mix during a scuffle. It is NOT the right tool for a violent encounter with a bad guy at bad breath distance. It is a miserable thing to tote around while doing traffic stops, filing paperwork, getting in and out of the car, doing health and welfare checks, talking to store owners, and all the other sorts of mundane stuff an officer has to do.

    All of that is just quadruply so for us average citizens who don't have a sworn duty to purposefully confront bad guys.

    Not really. Considering what that was a response to, it made no sense whatsoever. Do you understand the concept of security theater? You should.

    I don't know. However, it calms the populace. No government can ever exist in the aftermath of a terrorist attack without making a big show of "doing something." Realistically, there's practically nothing they can do that fixes, punishes, protects, or rectifies the public damage, but they have to wrap the public in a cuddly blanket of "protection" to calm the masses down and settle everyone's nerves. If a government said, "Well, that was a sad thing, this attack, but these things happen and in reality only a very few people were actually hurt. We'll keep an eye out but y'all wouldn't want us to try and lock down society so fiercely that we might actually have a 2% chance of stopping someone from doing this kind of thing. So, keep calm and carry on..." they'd be out of office instantly, swept aside by whichever party promised to mobilize the troops, the coast guard, the Boy Scouts, and everyone down to the Daughers of the American Revolution to "defend the homeland."

    So, we put some scary serious dudes with rifles in the lobbies of our airports ... to maybe shoot down the hijacked planes? Never quite did figure out what average Joe and Jane thought those soldiers were supposed to DO...

    Again, I don't think those are particularly rational responses, but that's moot because as I've pointed out in a number of ways now, we are never going to have "armed civilians everywhere". People COULD carry concealed handguns now without almost any fuss at all. Yet only something (guessing here, based on known figures) like 1% actually DO. The idea that we're going to have 20 or 30 or ??? hundreds of rifle-armed citizens strolling through any given public venue is utter fantasy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2017
  4. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    This is true, but it's also irrelevant. The takeaway is that people openly carrying rifles has been found to be beneficial in stopping terrorist attacks. If it were not, the Israeli government would not require it.

    When you get right down to it, someone openly carrying a rifle is no more absurd than putting national guard in airports or soldiers on the streets of Paris. Or the Israelis ordering certain people to carry guns when out on the town. Perhaps it is absurd. Perhaps it's just a psychological thing, as opposed to something practical. The point is that it does no harm. Think of it like the lock on your screen door. It's more or less useless, arguably, but does it do any harm being there? And does it do any harm to lock it? Absolutely not, and it may even contribute, in its own very small way, to the overall security of your house.

    I agree that there are pros and cons, and as stated I have no intention of toting a rifle around town. But don't forget we're only talking about one single aspect of this debate. This isn't even acknowledging the political aspect of it, the need to potentially defend against tyranny through armed protest, etc. We're also not taking into account the abrupt rise in incidents of terrorism and mass shootings, and their continued rise, or the events in Ferguson and Baltimore. While I do not CURRENTLY feel the need to tote a rifle, I certainly want to always have that option available to me, as our founders intended it to be.
     
  5. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,358
    What do you mean by "invalid"?

    Well, the absence of need will always constitute a practical reason for not doing something, unless there is very little effort, inconvenience, or opportunity cost associated with doing it.

    That is really not an applicable parallel. A police officer has the duty to stop crimes in progress, and t pursue and apprehend criminals. Hence carbines, multiple magazines, and so on.

    A civilian has no such duty, and would in the vast majority of conceivable scenarios not be justified in using a firearm against someone who did not meet the aforementioned A, O, J, and P criteria.

    There are exceptions. If someone were shooting at a sheriff's deputy at the other end of an RV park, an M4 would be a much better choice than the .357 revolver that the park owner used successfully in that incident a couple or three years ago.

    But when the need for using deadly force does materialize, situations that would require the use of a long arm by anyone other than a sworn officer are so far outside the envelope of reasonable probability to put them on the lowest priority level when it comes to equipment and training,
     
  6. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,540
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Israel doesn't require people to carry rifles. Israel requires military personnel, trained and subject to command authority, to carry rifles even in mufti.

    In fact Israel doesn't permit people to go about armed in public. Israel permits only certain people, subject to some pretty stringent requirements, to go about armed in public.
     
  7. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    Precisely. Open carry costs society nothing. And while there's no direct need at the moment, there is something to be gained. By normalizing and then practicing open carry, we preserve our right to do so, and that is the bigger picture. If a side effect is increased security, or a decrease in crime or terrorism, or even one life saved, then all the better.

    Again, think of it like the lock on your screen door. It doesn't hurt anything being there, and if you choose to use it then it may in some way benefit you at some point.

    I would also reemphasize that this whole debate is moot. Open carry is now a fact of life, and that's unlikely to change unless there's a radical reduction of gun rights in this country. But for the moment, the momentum is not going in that direction, so our best move would be to accept it and focus all of our efforts on making it work to our advantage. Open carry does not represent a risk to our society, but if not executed properly it could very easily represent a political risk to our Second Amendment rights.
     
  8. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,540
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    And that, finally, is a sensible, and true, observation -- at least in most of the country.

    And that is also a sensible observation.

    And here I agree with Sam. We can not control how folks act in the exercise of their rights. The best we can do is hope that the sensible and mature will be enough to eclipse the antics of the Katzenjammer Kids among us.

    After a lot of folderol, we've reached the bottom line.
     
  9. grampajack

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,714
    It's getting these sensible people in on the game that's the tricky part. And I'm talking out of my hindquarters here because I'm part of the problem at the moment, in that I have never openly carried a firearm and have no concrete plans of starting. I would, under the right circumstances, but I'm still not completely certain what those circumstances would be. Open carry was only recently legalized in my state, so we will have to tread carefully here.
     
  10. george29

    george29 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,454
    I'm not going to get into the debate pro or con open carry, I will say that when I wore a uniform and was obligated to open carry I also carried concealed (J frame M60). I was friends with an officer from a foreign police department who had a partner, that had his holstered service pistol snatched, and we're it not for the attached lanyard (score one for the lanyard) he would have been shot with his own gun. As it is, he received a beating from the perps partner that hospitalized him all because he was protecting the weapon from being taken. I'm not a fan of open carry.
     
  11. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,286
    Location:
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    Living in an open carry state does have a big benefit for the concealed carrier. I don't need to worry about whether or not my handgun is "printing", or if my shirt tail comes up too high while reaching for something on a store shelf, etc.

    I open carry on occasion, but do so with discretion. Downtown Albuquerque or Santa Fe? Probably not. Anywhere in Carton County? Always.
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  12. Water Garden

    Water Garden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Location:
    Rural South
    When considering OC vs CC, I simply consider which mode of carry is most likely to afford me the greater advantages in the most varying public venues. Although I honestly believe that OC can be a greater benefit over CC in some very narrow circumstances, that belief is simply not enough to overcome what I see as multiple potential disadvantages. I am not really concerned with how the public regards my mode of carry, If I believed that OC would bolster my SD initiatives broadly and in most circumstances...I'd do it. I don't believe that, so I wont. I also wont paint all OCers with the same brush but generally speaking and based on what I have had the occasion to encounter in my travels... there are trained people and then there are OC people.
     
  13. Wichaka

    Wichaka Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    Washington State
    For those in Washington, this is a training I did for LE folks about the legalities of open carry;

    Open Carry of Firearms in Washington

    Review Washington’s “Open Carry” for firearms law.



    Scenario:

    Deputy Wrangler sees two men walking down the street. The men are laughing and talking as they cross the street. One of the men tips his hat to a lady as he passes. Deputy Wrangler notices everyone is taking a second look at the men as they pass. Deputy Wrangler takes a closer look to see what everyone is looking at. He sees both men are carrying what appear to be long-barreled, pearl handled revolvers in holsters on their belts. It doesn’t appear the men are trying to hide the guns. The men walk into a restaurant that serves alcohol and sit down for dinner.




    QUESTION #1:

    Have the men committed a crime by carrying their guns where everyone can see them while in public?



    The correct answer: No

    Washington is an “open carry” state for firearms. This means there is a presumption that carrying a handgun in

    an exposed holster, for instance, is legal except where it is specifically prohibited. Open carry does not require

    a license. On the other hand, concealed carry of a firearm out in public is generally illegal without government

    authority.







    QUESTION #2:

    RCW 9.41.270 states “It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm or any

    other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time

    and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of others.”

    Can the men be charged? Obviously people are looking at them a second time when they see the guns in plain view.



    The correct answer: No

    In this law, mere possession of an openly carried handgun is not prohibited. In order to support an enforcement

    action under this law the officer must be able to articulate (describe in a convincing manner) malicious intent by

    the suspect or circumstances that reasonably cause alarm to the public. In either case, because open carry in

    Washington is presumably legal, the articulation must include something beyond mere, open possession.







    QUESTION #3:

    Since the men went into an establishment that serves alcohol, can they be charged?



    The correct answer: No

    This could be considered a trick question since many restaurants have lounges and it would depend on where

    the men sat. For this discussion we are assuming they sat in the eating area of the restaurant.

    RCW 9.41.300 in part reads (1) it is unlawful for a person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly

    possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

    (a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility;

    (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court proceedings;

    (c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility;

    (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one

    years of age; or

    (e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport.

    • This illegalizes mere possession at these places, including open carry, unless an exception applies.

    Exceptions are spelled out in subsections 6-9.
     
    Mainsail, Sistema1927 and Frank Ettin like this.
  14. Audie Murphy

    Audie Murphy member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Messages:
    74
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    As for me, I don't like to open carry. Why? Because it's foolish. Would you brag in public that you are carrying $20,000 dollars? Of course NOT. Same goes for me that I would not open carry. I'm not saying to NOT open carry. It's just one more way to give gun haters a reason to get hysterical.
     
  15. Audie Murphy

    Audie Murphy member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Messages:
    74
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    "Colorado Restaurant Serves up a big helping of Second Amendment." Google it. Everyone here will love it. Watch the video.
     
  16. Keyfer 55

    Keyfer 55 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2018
    Messages:
    292
    Location:
    GA
    I think and want open carry to be legal in all
    States.
     
    .308 Norma and P5 Guy like this.
  17. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,501
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    I see nothing wrong with restoring rights.
     
    Keyfer 55 likes this.
  18. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,326
    Location:
    Colorado
    While I fully support your right to open carry as you see fit it's certainly not something I'm interested in doing because IME it invites people into my life that I don't want in my life.

    I open carry at work because it's a requirement but what I've found is that all it really does is give people a reason to make stupid comments about my gun. I remember one idiot in particular who said literally the exact same words every time he saw me. "Here comes the guard,he's got a gun. Better watch out or he'll shoot you."

    I've also read comments on various forums in which the poster took great pleasure in addressing an open carrier in public to either tell him what kind of an idiot he was or how grateful he was that the carrier was supporting the Second Amendment. I find both approaches to be incredibly annoying and if I can avoid that by not open carrying I will.

    I'm not a cop but my job brings me into contact with some pretty sketchy people on a regular basis The one overwhelming characteristic I see among these people is that everyone E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E they meet is a mark.

    They try to get over on everyone they meet. They're absolutely convinced they're smarter than you and when they look at you the fact that you're openly armed is not a deal breaker. If it was open carriers would never have their weapons stolen. Your gun does not intimidate them in the slightest. If they can figure out away to take it off of you they will and if they can't they'll look for someone else.

    I've told this story before but I went into a 7-11 to get a gas receipt for the company car one afternoon While I was in line a homeless guy walked through the door, took one look at me and got right in my face and yelled "I'm security around here expletive deleted". I was wearing body armor, carrying a taser, pepper spray and a gun and it didn't phase this guy one bit. On another occasion a tweaker tried to take my gun off me in a Kum&Go one night. If they weren't intimidated by me in full battle rattle I don't believe they'd hesitate an instant to go after the Taurus you're carrying in an Uncle Mike's.

    I say this a lot because I'm absolutely convinced it's true but if you want to open carry by all means do so but you had better have a plan for WHEN someone tries to take it off you.
     
  19. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,358
    [QUOTE="Trunk Monkey, post: 11175988, member: 174929"...]if you want to open carry by all means do so but you had better have a plan for WHEN someone tries to take it off you.[/QUOTE]Step one is to not provide people with the opportnity to do so.

    Step Two is to reduce their ability--retention holsters, etc.

    But it is imprtant to realize and take into account the possibility of the grabber making use of a blow to the head from behind.
     
  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