Open carry is setting us back. IMO

[AKElroy]

I have a deer lease not far from Mason, TX. This is a town the economy of which is pretty much driven by hunters, so every other truck has a rifle rack, all the hotels run "hunter specials", all the eateries have camo menu's, etc.

OC is still illegal in Texas. I recently walked out of a local walmart w/ a BB pistol for my son, and opened it in the truck. An employee came by to round up carts, saw the gun, assumed it was real, and had clear concern. I rolled down the window & said "BB gun, for my son, just bought it".

He said the day before a hunter had walked in, OC a big Ruger Blackhawk. Shopped, got to checkout before an employee expressed concern to the manager. The store manager came down & reminded the camo-clad hunter that his store is not a deer lease, and politely asked him not to OC in the store in the future. The hunter had simply forgotten to remove it.

Tha manager was basically giving him the heads up that he had forgotten to take off his field gun to keep him from getting arrested.

No cops, no national panic. I guess my point is that concern over OC is regional and local, that Texas needs OC, and that Mason is the coolest place on earth.

 

[NavyLCDR]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20100421_12_0_OKLAHO649094

Oklahoma is coming around!

What kills me, though, is the lame and stupid comments by the naysayers. Hello, morons..... the bill changes nothing about people carrying guns except where they tuck their shirt in! The same license will still be required, and the same people will still be carrying guns that always have been! When the bill passes into law, it's time for Oklahoman's to start open carrying and show the naysayers that their fears are nothing more than morbid fantasies.

 

[ssblair]

OC has had an interesting effect that hasn't been talked about much in this thread, and that is the legal effect. A lot of OC'ers are what you could call 'constitutionalists', and believe in making the cops and local politicians follow their state laws (and Fed. constitution)as they are written. Look at the dozens of times that OC"ers have been confronted by cops who violated their 4th/5th amendment rights and often state rights as well. The cops or municipalities were sued and mostly the OC folks won---and that's a good thing.

I like that... alot. Winning those legal battles--particularly if the police can be held liable for damages from unlawful imprisonment or something--that will change attitudes in law enforcement from the top down and dissuade LE interference.

Prudently exercise your rights (think about the confluence of circumstances to decide if it's a good idea or not)

Amen. Rights that are exercised irresponsibly will get nullified. Paintball players have been fighting an uphill fight for social acceptance since the 80's because they were a minority that had to distance themselves from vandals and miscreants. Nowadays paintball is much more popular and I don't sense that the public has such a dim or leery view of it. That is a success story, but it is still subject to public opinion--it just has more friends to the industry now than it did in the past.

If enough of the right people get motivated to change it, Rights can be taken away just like "privileges"--in theory it just takes a few more people to agree to do away with them. Even the 1st Amendment is not an absolute--you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, for example. Rights must be exercised responsibly, if not, then the wingnuts and irresponsible folks will start giving the legislature and judiciary cause to put astrisks next to our Rights and then once they "break the seal of sacredness" it will go downhill from there.

--------

That said, I think one thing that separates current day from way back when, is that people are less likely to know who you are. "Back in the day" when towns were small, people would know if you were a lunatic or not or if they should or shouldnt be concerned that you were armed. These days its rare that I see people that know me when I'm out and about running errands, etc. If I saw somebody carrying openly--lets say in the local mall--I'd think "power to you for standing up for our rights and educating people that guns are not inherently evil" but at the same time I'd be thinking "I hope he's not a wingnut". In Indiana, for a CCW, you need to pass a background check and that lends a measure of trust to me that this guy at least isnt a criminal. In theory, anybody who has purchased a firearm commercially passed a background check there too, so if this guy's legal to own a firearm, he may not be that bad. But then again, firearms can be legally procured without background checks and several noteworthy shooters in recent years were legal owners of firearms procured commercially who just went off the deep end due to unreported mental issues or agendas that just werent known to LE--I'm not proposing a change here, just pointing out that it is what it is.

So you watch the guy to see if there are any flags in his behavior that might suggest anything amiss. Some of the guys in my gun club, if I encountered them OC before I knew anything about them, I would be thinking defensively in his vicinity because of their particular mannerisms and disposition. Now that I know them, it wouldnt bother me so much. So if I'm seeing somebody OC, I'm watching them anyway, particularly if they're solo. If they're interacting well with people, maybe they're ok. If they're looking awkward, shifty, anti-social, or something looks wrong or doesnt match up to what I would expect of "normal, well adjusted person", I will make sure I know where he is as long as he's in my vicinity, or I might even leave the area.

Anyhow, my point is that OC is legal and I dont think I would have the law any other way, but there's no way to know if the guy that is OC is legal or even sane, and I think that does add a certain level of stress to those around them on their first encounter with him. Requiring all firearm sales to go through background checks would require a registry to enforce and would be a boondoggle (saying nothing of what the registry is a harbinger of). Codifying "Shall Issue" language in all states and require permitting for OC as well as CCW would lend some comfort, but the permitting system would be expensive and unless LE was prepared to challenge every OC person for their permit every time they see somebody OC--something we don't want to come of this--then I don't see the value of the permit requirement except to add charges to the list against somebody who's already going to jail for committing some other crime.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

The more people open carry, the less people will be afraid of them and the more routine it'll become to see a gun openly displayed. I am 17 years old and I only remember seeing one open carrier, and I believe it was a EMT.

 

[armoredman]

People keep bringing up California. Bad example, look just a LITTLE bit east of there. Arizona. Open carry legal since 1912. CCW permit law in 1994, and this year, carry open OR concealed without permit, ala Alaska/Vermont. Open carry was the rule of the day, and I did all the time when I was of legal age, until CCW came around. I had police ask my what caliber I fancied, a bank teller and I had a lively discussion on favorite self defense ammunition, grocery store clerks asked me what gun shop to go to to buy thier own like mine, etc. Legal as church on whatever day of the week you wish, and still legal. Never set back a thing here, we even had that gentleman with the AR-15 on TV during the Obama visit, legally, and the antis had to tight focus on the rifle to call him a racist...so nobody would see he was black! Didn't set back any legislation here, we make our laws better every year.
Next year, maybe we will get a state Constitutional Amendment cementing the right to permitless CCW/open carry, just in case.

 

[Mp7]

( not talking about countryside, or lil towns btw )

... i´d rather agree with the OP.

If the laws make it possible to ccw
and people behave accordingly

... i see no reason why i´d add the gun image
to everyday life ... like with my knife, mobile,
glasses, ... whatever ... unless i need to use them
it´s nobodys business.

Guns are tools.
And tool belts can look silly
on folks that are not pro-carpenters etc.

just my 02 cents, from another point of view.

 

[Enachos]

... if only every gun owner in the U.S. (in states where it's legal to OC of course) could open carry on a certain day. I'm sure all the anti's and the oblivious would be surprised at how peaceful and knowledgable Open Carriers can be. I'm sure that would change everyone's way of thinking.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Up here in Alaska, which is the most arms-keeping and arms-bearing state in the Union, we've still got people here in Anchorage who are so hoplophobic that they'll call the police if they see someone openly carrying a weapon in public.

I can see the arguments on both sides, but think I tend to side with the original poster's thoughts -- any in your face approach to a divisive topic will tend to drive fence sitters away, not towards, the group taking the confrontational approach.

Without derailing the topic, does anybody remember how they felt when Rosie O'Donnell was up on TV with her domestic life partner or whatever after the mayor of San Francisco said he didn't care what California law said, he was going to let gay marriage happen in San Francisco? From what I recall, it seemed like a lot of people who probably didn't care enough about the the issue to cast a vote for or against it suddenly realized that they were up for voting against anything that Rosie O'Donnell was willing to run her mouth about. When you're open carrying in Walmart and some Soccer Mom herds her kids to a different check out lane because she thinks you're dangerous -- you're pulling a Rosie O'Donnell on us.

 

[inSight-NEO]

It provides tremendously easy to exploit fodder for the anti gunners.

Maybe. But, I am inclined to believe that the "anti gunners" will always find something to add fuel to their political bonfire. Until they begin to think logically and actually educate themselves on firearms, whether open carry laws are in place or not, it will always be the same, tired old argument.

It makes people on the fence and the antis scared and intimidated, and that’s just where the antis want them, so they’re easy to manipulate

Again, its all about properly educating such individuals. Not to make light of the subject, but take a look at the vast number of individuals who are taken from this earth on a yearly basis due to drunk drivers. Yet, I see no one purporting that vehicles are inherently instruments of death and destruction. Why? Because vehicles are an "understandable" item. One is able to easily set apart the "irresponsible" driver from the vehicle itself. Unfortunately, not so with guns. Here, many are inclined to focus on the weapon alone. After all, guns are only meant for killing...right? Once again, this all boils down to a gross lack of education and common sense.

I guess a gun toting individual on a murder spree makes for much better headlines, and political fodder, than someone (or many) being killed by a drunk driver.



Frankly, pro-OC laws do not bother me one bit. Honestly, I see it as an improvement in that it shows strong support for [legal] gun owners and those who choose to carry, rather than simply focusing on, and buying in to, anti-gun propaganda. I certainly do not consider this a "backward step." As has been mentioned before, the core issue here seems to be whether or not those around you can actually see the weapon you are carrying....probably the same weapon you have carried all along, but concealed. The transition, to me, is a fairly small one. Are there potential negatives? Maybe. But, then again, the positives do exist. Similar to many things in life.

In regards to open carry "scaring" and/or turning off many individuals; frankly, I believe that it is the militant anti-government types, who are very aggressive (by aggressive, I mean going as far as to threaten the use of violence) in their pursuit of maintaining their second amendment rights, that truly turn off those who are "on the fence" about the whole gun issue. This, IMHO, truly gives the anti-gunners all the fuel they need in order to label the "gun loving" crowd as militant and irresponsible. Ditto for any "killed by a gun" headlines they can scrape up. The whole open carry issue is just an extension of a preexisting fear/misconception.

It is just a shame that, when it comes to weapons, whether speaking of CC or OC, many individuals automatically conjure up images of death and violence vs focusing on the real idea that guns can indeed be used to protect rather than to simply destroy.

When we see a gun strapped to the hip of an LEO, its all about protective measures; yet, when/if we see the same weapon strapped to the hip of a civilian, it automatically becomes a mere instrument of death. This is ridiculous.

In essence, it is crap such as what I have mentioned that needs to be overcome, whether nationally or locally, in order for open carry laws to succeed in the long run. Frankly, I am all for it.

There will always be naysayers. Let them go unarmed, misinformed and whatnot....should they choose to do so. But, IMHO, they are doing themselves a grave disservice in doing so.

To reiterate my point- It is all about educating the public about the benefits regarding the use of a firearm, along with the idea that yes, using such an item can indeed be done with a high degree of maturity and responsibility; in doing so, hopefully dispelling the myth that carrying a gun (yes, even openly) is a detriment. Fear of the unknown/misunderstood is a powerful one indeed. The anti-gunners use this every day, to their benefit.

 

[ccw_steve]

InSight-NEO, you hit the nail on the head.

People who hold radical anti-gun sentiments will always find ways to negatively portray firearms, openly carried or not. Especially good point about the traditional view of LEO's with a gun vs. an average citizen with a gun.

Those who are are "scared" by a visible display of a firearm are just as "scared" when the firearm is concealed. People's fundamental perspectives on firearms must be changed before any legislative progress can be made.

OC (when done correctly) encourages people to think about these issues.

 

[JohnKSa]

OC (when done correctly) encourages people to think about these issues.

One could even say "when done prudently".

People who hold radical anti-gun sentiments will always find ways to negatively portray firearms, openly carried or not.

This is true. However in order to use their sentiments to actually hurt us they need a pool of support. We, as gun owners, must be prudent in how we exercise our rights so that we don't create or add to that pool of support.

The examples of shooting early in the morning on weekends or in the middle of the night that I mentioned earlier in the thread are ways that a person could exercise his gun rights in an imprudent manner that would add to the pool of support that anti-gunners need in order to achieve their agendas.

The fact that anti-gunners are always out to get us regardless of what we do doesn't mean we can ignore them. Just because we can't change THEIR minds doesn't mean that there aren't minds out there that can be changed. There ARE people out there with minds that can be changed and we need to be prudent in how we interact with those people.

I might expand your comment, though, to say that anytime anybody does anything bad with a gun it hurts our cause. It may be the OCer, the CCer, or the criminal. If something bad or stupid happens with that gun, the anti-s are going to scream about it.

That is exactly correct. I might expand it to say that anytime someone does anything unwise or imprudent with a gun and the public finds out it hurts our cause. But I would say that it's not an issue of whether or not the antis scream about it--they're always going to scream about guns. The REAL issue is how many fence-sitters are listening to them scream and paying attention.

If an anti starts screaming and a fence sitter thinks: "Yeah, that person is right--gun owners are a problem because: fill in the blank

• some hunter shot my uncle's cow.
• that guy down the road shoots his supermagnum early on Saturday morning.
• I found a bullet hole in the road sign out in front of my mom's house.
• that camo-wearing nut always OC's in the Wal-mart.
• the target shooters leave shot up garbage out at the county range.
• etc.

THEN we have a problem.

Some people here are suggesting that open carry causes people to be offended which in turn causes more legislation to prevent open carry...so therefore we shouldn't open carry.

Some people advocate that. I think the best approach isn't to stop open carrying, it's to be wise in how we exercise our firearm rights. Regardless of whether we're hunting, target shooting, or OCing.

 

[dec41971]

Unfortunately, "open carry" has now prompted a new Bill in California (who's not surprised??) making it a crime in many instances.
I need to move the hell outta here!!!!!

Its because some of the OC purposely seek to shock. Some even do things covertly to look intimidating without crossing the line. Most people feel threatened when they see it, and IMO it doesn't help when OC are nothing more than stunts and antics. In the end, they turn off more people than they attract to the cause. The antis use it as ammunition because its effective and works for them.

 

[inSight-NEO]

The whole controversy surrounding open carry seems to simply be an extension of a preexisting fear/misconception. It may be prudent to focus on the latter in order to truly deal with the former.

The REAL issue is how many fence-sitters are listening to them scream and paying attention.

As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water...."; you get the idea.

It sometimes seems as if it boils down to who is able to scream the loudest..the anti-gun crowd or the pro-gun crowd.

Of course, all gun owners should strive to be advocates/role models for the safe, mature and effective use of weapons. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Hence, the battle continues.

 

[rondog]

I was in a Sportsman's Warehouse recently, and encountered a gent with a bird dog on a leash. I stopped to pet the dog, commented about how I loved dogs and what a nice boy he was, then thanked the gent for letting me pet him and went on my way. Saw them both later at the checkout a couple of folks ahead of me. As they were going out the door, only THEN did I even notice the man was OC'ing a pistol and two magazines!

I think that's the first time I've ever seen anybody do it, but this was right under my nose and I didn't notice. Wish I had, so we could have chatted about it. OC isn't my bag, personally, but I'm all for people that want to do it. I just don't like drawing attention and risking hassles and BS. I'm happy with CC for myself.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Why would someone feel the need to bring a dog to a store?!? It's fine if you want to have your dog at home. I am all for the right to keep dogs, but to walk them around town in public like that? There are some people who are afraid of dogs. They should be able to shop in a store with out having to deal with the anxiety of having dogs walk right up to them. Hello, 911, I would like to report a MWAD....

 

[RatDrall]

If the NRA was worth the donations that they are sent every year, they would run a national advertising campaign to educate the public about the benefits of handgun carry.

Maybe they could start with a simple pamphlet informing the general public that guns cannot simply "go off" and go from there...

 

[Yo Mama]

If the NRA was worth the donations that they are sent every year, they would run a national advertising campaign to educate the public about the benefits of handgun carry.

The NRA is you! Why not contact them and throw the idea their way. Get involved on your end.

 

[Snakum]

As far as OC and the law goes....every single one of us better pocket our opinions and egos and get 100% behind defending the right to OC.

Dam skippy. The slippery slope of gun control people talked about twenty years was right on the money. I actually get uncomfortable sometimes when I see folks who are a little "out there" OCing. I admit it. But I will defend their right to do so. I try to do it sometimes too just to remind folks here in NC that we have a right to do so. I am always respectful when confronted by a security guard at Food Lion or a Lowes manager, and patiently explain their corporate policy (they rarely know it) and always leave if asked. No need to cause a stir. Just a need to remind folks that we have this basic right. I make myself do it sometimes, even though I am often uncomfortable doing so. One day this freedom too will be lost and once again ... we can all look in the mirror and remind ourselves who let it happen.

Wear it!

 

[NavyLCDR]

If the NRA was worth the donations that they are sent every year, they would run a national advertising campaign to educate the public about the benefits of handgun carry.

Hello! It's right there in their name: National Rifle Association! It's not the National Firearms Association, or the National Handgun Association, or the National Self Defense Association.

The NRA does tend to lean towards hunters and rifle/shotgun issues and stays out of self-defense and right to carry issues. In fact, there was a rumor that came out of one of the AZ legislator's office that the NRA was lobbying against the Constitution Carry Bill. You will notice on the NRA-ILA website that they only reported on the bill and never actually came right out and stated that THEY supported it.

The Second Amendment Foundation is not nearly as large as the NRA, but they get more involved in the carry and self-defense issues. http://www.saf.org/

 

[sv51macross]

^ More reason to support the NRA then!

 

[NavyLCDR]

sv51macross,

Why is it that you are against Joe Citizen being armed?

 

[One-Time]

Lets look at Cali again, in response to the 'they are gonna pass a law to prevent OC because of *insert group here*'

OC has been legal in california for ever, originally it included loaded guns, but when the Police went after the Black Panthers in the 60s all they could do was ban them from carrying their loaded guns in public, thats what got us here to now

So I assume you then support racist laws against groups you dont like? Thats what gun control is and started as in most states

 

[pete f]

Open carry is Constitutional carry. If you don't like it, you need to change your mind, not change the concept of the Constitution.

 

[sonier]

the more people can legaly stop concealing and open carrying the quicker people will be less scared in time. The Antis put this fear into the people who are scared of guns, you think hiding guns is going to help our cause or Antis. something tells me the Antis kindve wanted us to have to conceal in the first place, so to put this in simplier terms, if it is on the Anti gun peoples agenda to conceal then it isnt good for us to conceal cause thats giving them what they want.
The more people see that legal gun owners are very responsible the better it will be and you can only do that by showing them that we are responsible.

PS and pete F. your wrong the famous rednecks last words has always been "HEY YALL WATCH THIS!! not dude " though dude may be starting to become a trend lol

 

[Mad Chemist]

Name anything that does not gain acceptance as it becomes more widespread.

Bedbugs.