OPen carry in CC states

[beatledog7]

A thought:

Many people have very limited exposure to firearms, mostly via movies and TV. How are firearms treated in these media? Bad guys use them to commit crimes; law enforcement uses them to stop the bad guys.

When do we see firearms portrayed in the civilian exercising RKBA context? Occasionally in a news story, usually spun. In westerns, where the context is clearly "we used to be like this." How often do we see, on an episode of a popular network program or in a nationwide release film set in the present day, a civilian exercising the right to keep and bear arms? Unless we watch programming specifically about shooting sports, hunting, etc., we don't see it at all.

The channels most people watch and the movies most people see stick to the bad guys and LEOs model. So it's to a degree understandable that in areas where it isn't common to see civilians carrying, people see a gun without a LEO attached and they think, BAD GUY!

 

[NavyLCDR]

The channels most people watch and the movies most people see stick to the bad guys and LEOs model. So it's to a degree understandable that in areas where it isn't common to see civilians carrying, people see a gun without a LEO attached and they think, BAD GUY!

How is that ever going to change until the public sees examples of Joe Citizen carrying a gun for self-protection during the course of normal everyday activities?

 

[Skribs]

How is that ever going to change until the public sees examples of Joe Citizen carrying a gun for self-protection during the course of normal everyday activities?

This is why I think it is important for people to OC. The belief we're trying to quash is the reason why I'm hesitant to OC. I don't think I'm being hypocritical here, although maybe slightly.

You are right, though, beatle. I've been watching Law and Order: SVU, and (aside from bad gun knowledge on the part of the writers/actors and some very unsafe handling by lab techs, i.e. pencil through the trigger guard), any time guns are mentioned by a private citizen the cops eye each other nervously. Watching the commentary for Triple X, the directory constantly talks about how "Xander, not an agent, has no right to know how to use a gun"...it's the "cops and criminals" idea that irks me.

 

[316SS]

So, then, what conclusion do you draw from that? Are you agreeing with exbrit49 that gun owner's should not carry openly because of the small, but vocal, minority that will be bothered by it? Or are you saying we need to not allow political perception and threats affect our personal decision to provide protection for ourselves and our families in the most effective and legal way, which for me is open carry.

I think the idea that we ban something because it makes a few people unjustifiably nervous is dangerous to a free society. As a resident of California, for me your daughter's statement of "He doesn't need to hide his gun, he's not a criminal" would be untrue. Failure to conceal is malum prohibitum. At least I am fortunate enough to live in a county that will issue CCW.

I should point out that we are talking about unloaded OC that was banned in California, in response to folks who open carried as a form of activism. Loaded OC was already illegal in most of the state and is still legal in some areas if I understand correctly.

NavyLCDR, I fully support your choice to OC; if I had the option to do so legally I probably would.

 

[zxcvbob]

This evening my wife and I were in the local drug store picking up prescriptions when in walked a guy wearing Khakis and a Tee Shirt that said ‘Firearms Instructor.” My wife and I are avid shooters and are used to being around firearms. We live in Indiana where concealed carry is allowed and I bet that 99.99% of firearms are carried concealed.
There were several older customers in the store and when I looked at them they had that alarmed look on their faces. It was obvious they were very uncomfortable, probably more so since in the local area we have had numerous armed robberies at pharmacies for prescription drugs.

Was the guy in fact open-carrying a firearm, or did he just have a gun tee-shirt?

Nothing bad happened, and the "alarmed" customers will be less alarmed next time -- unless next time doesn't happen for a *long* time.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I think the idea that we ban something because it makes a few people unjustifiably nervous is dangerous to a free society.

NavyLCDR, I fully support your choice to OC; if I had the option to do so legally I probably would.

I was just wondering because there are other members of various gun forums who put the blame on the ban on OC in California upon those people who chose to open carry. They say that they should not have open carried because of the chance the government would ban it.

Makes a lot of sense, eh? Don't exercise your right because the government will take it away and then you won't have the right anymore!

 

[beatledog7]

I think I'll OC more often. It expands my carry options a lot.

 

[lloveless]

As 316ss pointed out, OC doesn't always make believers of the populace. OC as an activist statement in California didn't turn out well. It may in the long run, but short term it took what little right they had away. I was a deputy sheriff for 11 years in Tn. When in uniform oc not a problem. Out of uniform I OC'd with a badge. Although OC is legal in Tn I rarely do. I feel more comfortable, having the tactical advantage of suprise.
ll

 

[PabloJ]

This evening my wife and I were in the local drug store picking up prescriptions when in walked a guy wearing Khakis and a Tee Shirt that said ‘Firearms Instructor.” My wife and I are avid shooters and are used to being around firearms. We live in Indiana where concealed carry is allowed and I bet that 99.99% of firearms are carried concealed.
There were several older customers in the store and when I looked at them they had that alarmed look on their faces. It was obvious they were very uncomfortable, probably more so since in the local area we have had numerous armed robberies at pharmacies for prescription drugs.
I carry pretty much all the time, and I do carry concealed and if one of my sidarms happens to show accidently, I am usually more than a little embarrassed.
Sometimes coming back from the range I often need to stop and do some shopping or whatever and I immediately take off the OPEN carry items and leave one CC on me. I can’t imagine walking in to a store with an open carry, I would feel like an idiot. These are sensitive times due to some of the unfortunate rampages and incidents of the past few months, I don’t think that open carry in areas that allow concealed carry helps our cause. My wife is an avid shooter and spends a lot of time on the range with me and she was really upset to see this guy swaggering around the drug store with that 9mm on his hip.
What’s everyone one else’s thoughts on this?
Roger

OPen carry is legal where I live, but getting first slug or bat to the back of my head is pretty low on my wish list. I will pass.

 

[NavyLCDR]

As 316ss pointed out, OC doesn't always make believers of the populace. OC as an activist statement in California didn't turn out well. It may in the long run, but short term it took what little right they had away. I was a deputy sheriff for 11 years in Tn. When in uniform oc not a problem. Out of uniform I OC'd with a badge. Although OC is legal in Tn I rarely do. I feel more comfortable, having the tactical advantage of suprise.
ll

So basically what you are saying is that it is BETTER to have right X, but not to be able to exercise right X, because the government will take away right X as soon as it is exercised? That is a better situation than just plain having a law against activity X that can be challenged in court? It is much easier to prove in court that the government is infringing upon right X if there is a law against it, rather than a mere feeling of fear that the government might do something in the future.

OPen carry is legal where I live, but getting first slug or bat to the back of my head is pretty low on my wish list. I will pass.

Very rarely happens in real life.....like two or three times in the last few decades. What you speak of is 99% internet myth and 1% reality.

 

[Sam1911]

If you use it, they'll take it away. If you don't use they won't take it and you still have it and can use it. But if you use it they'll take it away. So the only way to have your right is not to ever use it.

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

 

[zoom6zoom]

NavyLCDR has saved me a lot of typing as he's said everything I was going to. Except for OC being very comfortable in our hot humid summers! Oh, and the added benefit that here in VA you can OC without a government permission slip. I OC daily, year round. And have in Indiana as well.

Why would a common criminal, picking out the easiest targets they can find, pick the guy with the means visible to kill them to attack?

Exactly. It's the same reason that Somali pirates don't generally attack the haze grey ships.

 

[PabloJ]

So basically what you are saying is that it is BETTER to have right X, but not to be able to exercise right X, because the government will take away right X as soon as it is exercised? That is a better situation than just plain having a law against activity X that can be challenged in court? It is much easier to prove in court that the government is infringing upon right X if there is a law against it, rather than a mere feeling of fear that the government might do something in the future.



Very rarely happens in real life.....like two or three times in the last few decades. What you speak of is 99% internet myth and 1% reality.

The reality is one posing greatest threat gets neutralized first.

 

[KTXdm9]

The reality is one posing greatest threat gets neutralized first.

Disagree. Most criminals are seeking an easy target. There's a reason criminals scope out their "marks" before pouncing.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The reality is one posing greatest threat gets neutralized first.

The reality is that the easiest target gets attacked first. Can you provide us with real world examples of your theory happening in real life? We've been waiting for a couple decades now...we can wait a few weeks more while you try to find an example.

 

[beatledog7]

Criminals seek the weak, just like predators in nature. A fit, 175-lb guy is never gonna look like the easiest target, and I don't see how OCing can change that.

 

[Jinx D'jinn]

Now, let's drop it. PLEASE.

Thanks Sam

 

[NavyLCDR]

Criminals seek the weak, just like predators in nature. A fit, 175-lb guy is never gonna look like the easiest target, and I don't see how OCing can change that.

Not everyone who open carries is a fit, 175-lb guy. There are two 5' 10" guys, 46 years old, 200 lbs with beer guts smoking cigarettes on two different street corners. You are a mugger looking to score a wallet with a couple of credit cards, driver's license, maybe $50 cash if you are lucky. Which one are you going to choose, the one that looks like 99.5% of the rest of the population, or the one with the gun on his belt that he is likely to use to try to kill you with?

 

[Carter]

I open carry about 99% of the time I carry. I have my CCW, but hate dealing with concealment. It involves baggier clothes, awkward weight distribution (even with a good iwb holster, it will never be as comfy as owb), and the worrying if you're exposed.

With open carry I can wear my normal sized clothes, wear a holster that isn't pulling on the inside of my pants, and I don't have to worry about flashing cause its always exposed.

I practice at the range from an open carry position most of the time so I don't have to train with a new system, my draw is faster, the pros and cons of oc vs concealed are pretty negligible to me, and my wife likes the way it looks.


As far as the publics reaction...generally not that many people notice. I've never gotten a thumbs up from someone I don't know though. The most common question I hear being, "Is that real?" and I over hear some negative comments because people don't think anyone actually listens anymore, and I've only been asked to remove my firearm once, which I did and was very polite about it.


Overall, nothing will stop me from OC except a change in the law or if its a sensitive situation or what not.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I only read the first page of posts so I'm sorry if I'm repeating anything already said.

I don’t think that open carry in areas that allow concealed carry helps our cause.

Wow, what a turn around from Pennsylvania. Here in PA open carry is legal because there are no laws preventing it. Carrying concealed is the regulated activity. We also do not have CCW permits, we have a License to Carry Firearms". You only need a LTCF if you want to carry a loaded firearm in your vehicle or carry concealed. Here in PA we don't worry about the person carrying where you can see the firearm, only when you hide it.

IMO the reason so many people are "alarmed" when someone carries openly is because so few do and it's a odd occurrence in many places in the country. Not many open carry in my area and I must admit, I tend to not open carry because I'm just too old and tired to fight the good fight any longer. I'll leave that to the younger folks... That doesn't mean I go to great lengths to cover up a handgun that's happens to be riding on my hip. If it's there it's there although I usually carry a J frame in my pocket.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

If you use it, they'll take it away. If you don't use they won't take it and you still have it and can use it. But if you use it they'll take it away. So the only way to have your right is not to ever use it.

So what is being said is, it's a classic Catch 22 situation here! :banghead:

 

[beatledog7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatledog7:
Criminals seek the weak, just like predators in nature. A fit, 175-lb guy is never gonna look like the easiest target, and I don't see how OCing can change that.

NavyLCDR said:
Not everyone who open carries is a fit, 175-lb guy. There are two 5' 10" guys, 46 years old, 200 lbs with beer guts smoking cigarettes on two different street corners. You are a mugger looking to score a wallet with a couple of credit cards, driver's license, maybe $50 cash if you are lucky. Which one are you going to choose, the one that looks like 99.5% of the rest of the population, or the one with the gun on his belt that he is likely to use to try to kill you with?

LCDR, you keep missing what I'm saying. Just because I can articulate the other side's position and can express why so many people take that position (Post 51) doesn't mean I agree with it or support it. A good debater must be able to argue for the opposite of that he thinks is true. That means he understands the opposing view, not that he is part of it.

Follow my reasoning and you'll see I am an OC advocate (Post 57) and that I don't think OCing makes anyone a target (quoted above). My point was that the fit 175-lb guy isn't the weak target, OCing or not, and that by appearing openly strong--even stronger than he would if not openly armed--he does not risk that the mugger will take him out first.

In your scenario above, the mugger will choose the presumably unarmed guy every time, and I never argued otherwise. We're in complete agreement on that.

We can all agree that firearms strengthen the weak, and I think that's especially when they are carried openly. A petite, 70-ish lady exiting her Cadillac wearing a lot of jewelry looks like an easy mark to a purse snatcher until he notes she's OCing a revolver. Seeing it, he very quickly decides that she's the stronger, and he moves on. As you noted, he wants her Visa card, bracelets, and cash, not a gunshot wound.

Did that clear everything up?

 

[TonyT]

I recognize that some people want to make a stand for their rights. However, I believe their position is foolish as it alarms many individuals and emboldens the anti-gun crowd to label us a "kooks". Discretion is the better part of valor!

 

[Sam1911]

However, I believe their position is foolish as it alarms many individuals and emboldens the anti-gun crowd to label us a "kooks". Discretion is the better part of valor!

Hee hee!


Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

 

[smalls]

I recognize that some people want to make a stand for their rights. However, I believe their position is foolish as it alarms many individuals and emboldens the anti-gun crowd to label us a "kooks". Discretion is the better part of valor!

Why does it always have to be a political stand? As others have shown in this very thread, it's just more comfortable. You don't have to worry about buying clothes that hide your gun.

And for those who do it as a political stand, good for them. Someone has to have the balls to defend their rights, as you just sit there doing nothing.