Do any LEOs open carry off duty or when retired?

[CorpITGuy]

Why does a "man with a gun" call get a response? If it's legal, that's sort of like a "man with a baseball bat" call, or a "man with a 20 oz. coke" call. Unless the man with a gun, baseball bat, whatever is threatening someone, why shouldn't we assume in both cases that the man isn't homicidal?

This is what I mean. Not all, but many well meaning LEOs still have the attitude that they are the only ones who should be carrying. That is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended.

 

[WC145]

Why does a "man with a gun" call get a response? If it's legal, that's sort of like a "man with a baseball bat" call, or a "man with a 20 oz. coke" call. Unless the man with a gun, baseball bat, whatever is threatening someone, why shouldn't we assume in both cases that the man isn't homicidal?

Clearly you don't know much about policing. Every call gets a response, you don't get to pick and choose what calls you respond to or ignore calls. If someone felt threatened by the "man with a bat" or "man with a coke" and called in a complaint then those situations would be responded to as well.

Where'd that come from? I never said anyone *here* was bashing open carry, though now that you mention it, there is some evidence of that.

Then you were painting with a pretty broad brush with your little rant.

2. Why do police open carry on the job, if it makes so little tactical sense? I doubt there are laws against cops concealed carrying. Those uniforms make no sense, either, if you follow that line of logic. We're getting our police officers murdered by allowing them to wear uniforms. :-/

You should reread the posts about officer presence and the force continuum, that should help you understand.

Open carry is as much about educating police & civilians as anything else.

As for offending folks... look, constitutional rights can be offensive. Free speech is offensive. The right to practice religion freely can be offensive. I don't let that affect whether or not I exercise any of my rights.

Your desire to hold open carry up as some sort of lesson to the masses and your defense of it as excercising your rights above all else tells me that your support of it is as a statement and has nothing to do with tactics or self defense. Tactical common sense dictates that the element of surprise that comes with concealed carry makes it the obvious choice for a defense minded citizen. To give up that advantage to "exercise your rights" is making a socio-political statement has nothing to do with self defense, and the idea of drawing attention to yourself and your weapon as a defensive plan is tactically retarded.

I don't care if people open carry if it's legal to do so where they are. That's their right and if they want to exercise it, great. All I'm saying is, call it what it is - a statement - because there's no sound tactical reason for open carry in plain clothes. That's why every LEO that has posted so far carries concealed off duty.

 

[dondavis3]

+1 WC145

If you were a LEO, don't you think you might approach a "man with a gun" call differently than a "man with a bat" call .

If you say no, then you truly are not being objective on this subject.

Just my .02

 

[CorpITGuy]

Clearly you don't know much about policing. Every call gets a response, you don't get to pick and choose what calls you respond to or ignore calls. If someone felt threatened by the "man with a bat" or "man with a coke" and called in a complaint then those situations would be responded to as well.

The "response" in the few areas where OC is not just legal, but accepted, in this country, is to tell the caller that the person OCing is well-within their rights. The reason a man carrying a gun in a holster in plain sight gets a response is NOT that the caller feels threatened. If I called 911 and said I felt threatened by my neighbor's fart, they would arrest me. A gun is only different than another deadly weapon (knife, etc.) due to the brainwashing that has gone on since the 1890s in this country.

Your desire to hold open carry up as some sort of lesson to the masses and your defense of it as excercising your rights above all else tells me that your support of it is as a statement and has nothing to do with tactics or self defense. Tactical common sense dictates that the element of surprise that comes with concealed carry makes it the obvious choice for a defense minded citizen. To give up that advantage to "exercise your rights" is making a socio-political statement has nothing to do with self defense, and the idea of drawing attention to yourself and your weapon as a defensive plan is tactically retarded.

I don't care if people open carry if it's legal to do so where they are. That's their right and if they want to exercise it, great. All I'm saying is, call it what it is - a statement - because there's no sound tactical reason for open carry in plain clothes. That's why every LEO that has posted so far carries concealed off duty.

I never said it was pure self-defense (look at my very first post in this thread), though you're using a very wide brush stroke when you say it has *no* tactical advantage. It clearly deters crime. And, it has been documented that criminals sometimes don't even notice the gun of an OC'er, as happened in Virginia earlier this year. Can you provide one or two references where a person was shot because they were carrying openly?

You say you don't care whether people open carry, but you sure are getting worked up about it (unlike most of the LEOs here).