The Open Carry Argument

[rickomatic]

Strong body language will help more than an exposed gun. Looking unsure or scared while OCing would not be very deterring.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Most perps are cowards, and looking for the easy mark. Don't look like one.

 

[MT GUNNY]

Great Post

Back in the day It was considered cowardly to CC.

I do both CC and OC, mainly what ever is comfortable at the time(CC Winter time, OC Summer time).

 

[JesseL]

Personally I couldn't care less if you open carry or not. Why do you open carry people demand approval? You remind me of militant gay rights activists, it's not enough for you to have acceptance, you MUST have approval. Good luck with that.

I don't care about approval, I just hate misinformation. How do you react when you hear someone ranting about how you concealed carriers are dangerous psychopaths, accidents waiting to happen, ready to start a gunfight over parking disputes, sneaking around with your hidden guns, all because you're afraid of the world and poorly physically endowed?

Open carriers hear this same kind of nonsense from people on our own side who ought to know better.

Also, if you think having a gun will deter all criminals you're a fool. Hardened gang members, meth heads, etc, etc, won't see that gun as a reason to leave you alone, they'll see it as a reason to attack you. They attack when they feel threatened, and an unknown person on their turf with a gun is threatening to them. They have numbers, they have no fear of death and some aren't human any longer. You can NOT expect them to behave like the muggers and stick up men from the 50's. But many open carry people deny this simple fact.

Show me the money.

Also, if you think you won't get negative attention then you've either been darn lucky or living in a coal mine. One of my best friends open carries and we've had three incidences in the last 5 years where there were some pretty unpleasant moments. And that's just when I was with him, I'm sure there have been others. Maybe you crave that kind of attention, God knows it takes all kinds to make up a world, but I for sure see it as a major drawback to open carry and it's the main reason why I don't.

I've got 9 years of open carry experience, with nothing more hostile than one old man who asked "Why do you need a gun just to walk down the street?". That's it. That's as bad as it's gotten.

I'm sorry your experience hasn't been as nice, but don't assume it's universally as bad as that. I can completely sympathize with this driving your choice to not OC. I do think it's important though for somebody to be out there working to change the public opinions that deter people from exercising their fundamental rights.

I'm not going to debate you point by point. Some of your points make sense, some are blinding wrong and you ignore other points entirely. There are pros and cons to open carry, denying the cons won't make them go away, but that seems to be your intended purpose. Again, good luck with that.

I'll readily admit that open carry has it's own set of pros and cons that differ from the pros and cons of concealed carry. Open carriers need to exercise better situational awareness (or rather can't as easily get away with poor situational awareness), need quality holsters that offer some retention, should make an effort to put a good face on their actions by being courteous and not looking too skeezy, and should be prepared to deal with the occasional negative reaction.

 

[Majic]

Unfortunately, while it may be legal, there are many venues where you will get hassled for "brandishing" just by open carrying. Thus, the need to CCW.

There is a distinct definition to brandishing.
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly 2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner
So please explain how you can be hassled for merely having a holstered handgun on your side?

 

[Samuel Adams]

"A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost"

 

[jrfoxx]

Very well said, Mainsail.

For me, I neither lean more towards open carry, nor towards concealed carry.I do both, with the same gun, in the same OWB retention holster, in the same location on my person, regardless. The ONLY factor for me in wether I carry concealed, versus carry openly, is how I am dressed, based on the weather. If the weather is such that I am wearing a jacket to be comfortable, then I am now carrying concealed.If the weather is such that wearing a jacket would be uncomfortable, then I am open carrying.That simple, and there is no more to it at all.

When I'm carrying concealed, I am not in any way actually trying to conceal my gun, it just happens to be so, because of how I'm dressed. In the same respect, when I am open carrying, I am not trying to "get attention", or be an "activist", or trying to make people more exposed/comfortable with the sight of open carry, etc. I am simply doing it because of how I am dressed, soley for my comfort.

There are possible scenarios in which carrying concealed is a drawback, and those in which it is a benefit.The same goes for open carry. However, since both methods have an equal number of possible risks and benefits, depending on the situation, I simply dont worry about them, as I have no possible way of knowing in advance, whch scenario may present itself, so I have no way of knowing in advance which would be the better choice, and neither does anyone else, as none of us can predict the future.

I carry to protect myself and my family, and possibly those around me, in case something happens in which using a gun is my only realistic option at the time. With the way I carry, and the fact there is never more than an open jacket covering my gun, if there is anything covering it at all, I can get to it just as fast either way if needed, and that is what I think counts, by far, the most. anything else, is impossible for me to predict, so I just dont concern myself with it. I am just as wary, polite, and aware wether I am carrying open, concealed, or not at all, so that is all I can really do, so I do what I find most comfortable for the given situation, and deal with whatever unpredictable events, if any, happen as they arise.

I could care less if, or why, others choose to carry concealed, and I could care less if, or why, others choose to carry openly, or even not carry at all. They are free to do as they please, for whatever reasons they please, as it has no impact on me, at all, whatsoever, just as I have no impact on them.And, even if my, or other gun carriers actions did in some way have any effect on me, as long as what they are doing is legal, and even moreso, if it's within thier constitutional rights, then I just just have to get over it, as would they, with me.The same goes for people who may dislike any of us carryring in any manner at all.They will just have to deal with it too.

 

[danweasel]

This is a weird question maybe. This would, in theory allow gangs to hang out with all kinds of weapons on their porches and also to tote them openly all around town. Are the cops going to have to harass every OC guy they see every time to make sure he has the license and isn't just walking around with a glock? Sounds kinda dangerous to be a cop in this world. I am sure when questioned some of them would rather draw than go to prison. I dunno, it seems that it will start an arms race on the street. Or make it worse, I guess. Can someone rebutt this for me?

 

[freakshow10mm]

In MI, open carry is legal and I doubt the criminals open carry, much less give a crap about gun laws.

Most gangbangers will draw from concealment.

 

[RaspberrySurprise]

This is a weird question maybe. This would, in theory allow gangs to hang out with all kinds of weapons on their porches and also to tote them openly all around town. Are the cops going to have to harass every OC guy they see every time to make sure he has the license and isn't just walking around with a glock? Sounds kinda dangerous to be a cop in this world. I am sure when questioned some of them would rather draw than go to prison. I dunno, it seems that it will start an arms race on the street. Or make it worse, I guess. Can someone rebutt this for me?

1. If your sitting on your property and not threating anyone why should it matter what you look like or who you are? Being in a gang itself is not illegal remember that amendment about peaceable assembly? Start acting like a tool and waving your gun about and your gonna get arrested doesn't matter if your a crip in full colors or an eighty year old man in a golf suit.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by toting weapons openly around town. Are you talking about pistols, rifles, shotguns or just any weapon? Laws tend to vary about carry long guns out openly but anyone toting one about is likely to get stopped by Officer Friendly for a chat.

3. In general you don't need a permit to OC. I'm not sure of the legality of stopping someone to check their permit in a place where it's required but I'd guess that it's frowned upon unless you have other cause to believe the person is breaking the law.

4. Being a peace officer of any type is a dangerous job and likely will be until such time as peace officers are not needed. I wish this wasn't the case but I don't have any answers how to change it either.

5. Most criminals that are willing to shoot a police officer over going back to jail are likely barred from owning weapons as it is, how they are carrying them is just icing on the cake at this point. At least if the criminal is open carrying the officer knows he is armed from the get go.

6. There already is a bit of an arms race going on right now, for the most part it is just between the cops and the criminals with Joe Citizen stuck in the middle. Most of the time when you see a news article about a PD going from shotguns to patrol rifles you'll see something to the tune of how they felt out gunned by criminals and needed to upgrade. Now this usually isn't the only reason given but it's often one of them.

Now before I get napalmed into oblivion I must say a few things. I respect police officers and understand that, like any walk of life, they have good and bad apples and try to make my opinions on an individual basis. Also I don't really care what an officer carries be it pistol, rifle, shotgun, or plasma rifle in the forty watt range. I do care if it is carried with little knowledge of its proper use. Thirdly I live in a small quite town with very little crime so I haven't seen some of the horrors the big city folk have.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I, for one, look like a biker, and as such lessen my chance of being a victim just by the way I dress. Open carry would be a big problem given my dress. Stereotypes run deep and I'm sure I would garner more then my fair share of attention having a gun at my side.

All I can think of to that argument is "why isn't a pistol part of the deal?" If you truly look like a biker stereotype, people probably think you're packin' anyway. If it's legal (like in MN), and you're legal (like -- no booze) push the law and pack openly. Tell us your stories and we will thank you for your efforts to make guns mainstream again.

A well-armed society is a polite society.

 

[jrfoxx]

This would, in theory allow gangs to hang out with all kinds of weapons on their porches and also to tote them openly all around town.

unless OC is illegal where they are, or they are felons, or otherwise barred from owning a gun, they already CAN do just that, 100% legally. Yet they arent. Criminals use surprise as an offensive weapon, so OC would be kinda dumb for them to do, IMHO, which is why they dont do it.Criminals also like to keep low -key, so they can commit thier crimes unnoticed, thus, CC allows them to be more low-key, and not stand out, especially to the local cops, who most likely know what most gang memebers look like, by clothing colors, style, actions, local, etc, if not by having been shown actual pictures of them, so it would be a little different than a cop rousting every person OC'ing. Here, they would have pretty good PC to make a check, being a known gang house, or that one is a known gang member/felon, etc.

 

[Mainsail]

This would, in theory allow gangs to hang out with all kinds of weapons on their porches and also to tote them openly all around town.

Yes, any adult citizen who can legally own a firearm (speaking only for WA) including blacks, gays, members of a street organization, and 50% Italians like me, can carry their sidearm (loaded) on their belt in a holster and it’s perfectly legal. Civil rights are scary sometimes.

Are the cops going to have to harass every OC guy they see every time to make sure he has the license and isn't just walking around with a glock?

It is illegal for the police to harass someone. If the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot, they can detain you to check your suspicious activity. Open carry, because it is presumably legal*, isn’t sufficient grounds by itself for an officer to detain you.

*The phrase ‘presumably legal’ means that when the officer sees the pistol he has to already (pre) assume the pistol is legal. He cannot stop you just to fish for something incriminating in order to arrest you.

No license is required to carry openly, only to carry concealed. Our State Constitution¹ recognizes our right to bear arms in defense of ourselves, and specifies that right is not to be impaired. A licensing scheme to either own or carry a firearm would certainly be impairment.

Sounds kinda dangerous to be a cop in this world. I am sure when questioned some of them would rather draw than go to prison. I dunno, it seems that it will start an arms race on the street. Or make it worse, I guess. Can someone rebutt this for me?

Easily rebutted. I’ve never heard of any open carrier anywhere drawing on an officer. The opponents of concealed carry proclaimed there would be ‘wild west’ shootouts if people were given the privilege of concealed carry; this was proven completely incorrect. In fact, the studies said the permit holders were better behaved than the average citizen. The same holds true, and some say more so, for open carry.

Again, civil rights can be frightening to many people. Some think it’s wrong if the exercise of your civil liberties is perceptible or upsetting to someone else. Think about it. Over there are some people publishing Islamic pamphlets², down the block there are half a dozen Hispanics holding a rally², right here there’s a woman giving a speech about lesbian rights², across town they’re building a new Lutheran church, and the police cannot legally seize any of them or their property without authority of law.³ Welcome to America!


¹SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

²SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged.
SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

³SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

 

[#shooter]

Good post, but there are some assumptions made.
All criminals are cowards.
Criminals are not looking for a fight.
All criminals are of sound mind and judgment capable of making rational thoughts.
Underestimate the utility of defensive surprise.

Deterrent Value:
Some businesses use a cop as a deterrent. While most criminals would avoid confrontation there are many that would relish in it and would see the cop as a “challenge”. They may see OC the in a similar light. While CC doesn’t make you any more or less of a target than the person next to you, OC does make you more (bad) or less of a target (good). I think OC deters more criminals than it attracts, but the criminals it attracts are probably much more violent and more willing to commit violence. In addition, I think the deterrent effect of CC is the “halo” effect. Criminals in CC states like TX and FL know that some people CC, the deterrent is to not attack a group of people but just one isolated person. The bigger a group of victims, the better chance one is armed. This means less criminal opportunities as it is harder to single out people.
First to be shot:
We don’t know how often this happens. High crime areas tend to be where there is low CC or OC areas. Are they correlated? I don’t know. I do know police and armed guards get shot, so there is no reason to think they wouldn’t shoot an OC person at first sight. Tellers and clerks do not get shot at first sight because they are needed to open safes or registers. The criminal may wait until you leave to rob the 7-11 after casing the place regardless of how you carry. I don’t think OC is seen as much as a risk to criminals as you may think. Criminals often deal with other criminals and both know the other is armed, yet that doesn’t seem to deter them from attacking each other.
Surprise:
You’re correct that in the ambush scenario the surprise of CC is minimal, but I fail to see the benefit of OC over CC in a similar situation other than the potential deterrence factor. OC has the same rules that apply to CC; they can only react to a threat. If OC draws on church going teens they will face the same punishment as the CC who did the same. It doesn’t matter if you are OC or CC you should avoid suspicious people and the possibility of an ambush.
While surprise is an offensive tactic, defensive surprise CC works well when in a group of victims. 1 on 1 the surprise element doesn’t factor too much for CC. When a criminal is confronting a group of victims then CC may provide an opportunity that OC would not as the OC would be singled out once found.

 

[pricee]

Really great post, Mainsail. I enjoyed reading the arguments and agree the points.

I have my CCW and carry concealed almost 100% of the time. I live in Kentucky, where open carry is fine. However, I feel hesitant to OC, and in fact, I have NEVER seen anyone open carry in eastern Kenucky. Not at Wally World, not in the grocery store, not at a theater, not at the quick mart, not at the gas station, not at the hardware store , nowhere. I find this odd, and in fact, I suppose one reason I don't OC is because I'd stand out like a sore thumb. Again, I carry concealed all the time.

How about anyone else? How often do you see someone open-carrying in a public setting?

Thanks

P

 

[JesseL]

How about anyone else? How often do you see someone open-carrying in a public setting?

Aside from gun store clerks and historical reenactors (who are pretty common here in the summer), I see someone open carrying in public once every week or two. They're overwhelmingly carrying 1911s or Glocks, in about a 3/2 ratio.

 

[Owen Sparks]

It should by your choice. Not the governments. The 2A doesn't mention concealment.

 

[Mainsail]

Good post, but there are some assumptions made.
All criminals are cowards.
Criminals are not looking for a fight.
All criminals are of sound mind and judgment capable of making rational thoughts.
Underestimate the utility of defensive surprise.

No assumptions were made. Everything stated should be considered in the general sense; after all, the only thing definite is that nothing is definite.

I don’t assume that criminals are cowards, they are not. It takes guts to approach a total stranger and rob them. It takes significantly more guts to approach a total stranger who is visibly armed to rob them. Which do you prefer to be?

I don’t assume that criminals are not looking for a fight. In fact, if they’re intending to rob someone, they are fully prepared to fight if it comes to that. What they are not looking for is to get hurt, killed, or sent back to jail (especially in light of the “third strike” laws). Remember the part about how their sense of self preservation is equal to yours? They are looking for a fight that they believe they have a reasonable chance of winning quickly. Re-read the parts about risk vs. gain.

I do not assume that all criminals are of sound mind, but the process of natural selection means that there are few that are completely whacked. The successful criminals, the ones you are most likely to encounter, are street wise. They hunt just like any predator in the wild; looking for the weakest and slowest of a group. Yes, we all worry about the crazies.

I do not underestimate the utility of defensive surprise; I give it exactly the merit it deserves. Surprise isn’t really even a defensive tactic at all; it’s a desperate last ditch effort to extricate you from a situation. If you want to call that a ‘tactic’ so be it. Surprise is a defensive tactic that forces you to be defensive, in other words, you can only react to a situation instead of avoiding it altogether. Like I said, I don’t want to shoot anyone, I don’t want to be a victim that fought back, and I don’t want to surprise a criminal.

The rest of your post makes me wonder if I lost you in the verbosity of my essay and leans on the assumption that open carriers are entering places or environments that concealed carries do not. As I go about my business I will visit places like Home Depot, Cutter’s Point Coffee, Blockbuster Video, Rock Pasta, or Wright Park. None of these places are ghettos or have concentrations of hardened criminals. I take the same precautions we all do regardless of the preferred method of carry. This is a common mistake open carry critics make, that because we’re carrying openly we are doing something different than you (collective you). Do you stroll through the high crime areas of town at night?

When a criminal is confronting a group of victims then CC may provide an opportunity that OC would not as the OC would be singled out once found.

It may, but so does no carry at all or carrying a fogging pepper spray. Do you prepare for the least likely or the more likely?

Would you angrily confront a 6’7” 230 pound muscular man with a burr up his butt if he stepped on your foot in passing? No you would not; the deterrent effect of his size and strength would cause your sense of self preservation to decide it isn’t worth getting into a big to-do over. Do you think a criminal has any less a sense of self preservation than you do? Regardless of the group size, if the thug sees one armed man or woman, he will have to rethink his attack plan, and will likely abort it. He doesn’t know and cannot see if anyone else is armed unless they all politely line up for him.

At no point do I disparage concealed carry. I carry concealed at times myself, but never because I believe I need surprise to defend myself. Those of us that carry openly believe in concealed carry and see it as a matter of preference. The essay was to list some of my reasons why I prefer open carry, not to discourage or disapprove of concealed carry.

 

[XDKingslayer]

The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush.

I don't see how a CCW can ever have the element of suprise on his side. Using your weapon is always reactionary. You have to wait until something arises in order to justify it being used.

That pretty much throws suprise out the window don't it?

 

[ScottyT]

Well said Mainsail! I always enjoy your posts, both here and over at http://www.opencarry.org!

 

[MinnMooney]

The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one.

Excuse me??? Can you imagine the surprise on the face of a gang-banger who jumps out from a dark alley with a knife to mug you and your SO when you pull a .45ACP? Surprise can be and sometime is the domain of both the offense and the defense.

 

[Mainsail]

Excuse me??? Can you imagine the surprise on the face of a gang-banger who jumps out from a dark alley with a knife to mug you and your SO when you pull a .45ACP? Surprise can be and sometime is the domain of both the offense and the defense.

Really? He’s going to just stand there and wait for you to draw? I guess there are muggers dumb enough to give you the opportunity, but most would slit your throat before you are able to reach the grip. Maybe he’ll shout, “Surprise!”

 

[Jenrick]

Also, if you think having a gun will deter all criminals you're a fool. Hardened gang members, meth heads, etc, etc, won't see that gun as a reason to leave you alone, they'll see it as a reason to attack you. They attack when they feel threatened, and an unknown person on their turf with a gun is threatening to them. They have numbers, they have no fear of death and some aren't human any longer. You can NOT expect them to behave like the muggers and stick up men from the 50's.

In my experience as an LEO working in what would be considered by almost everyone as "a bad part of town" (lets see a shooting, a carjacking, and a triple stabbing in a night) I've dealt with most of your variety of criminals.

You're "hardened gang member" is a mostly a myth, much like the idea of the professional mafia hitman. Sure there are mobsters who don't mind pulling the trigger, just like gang members. There however are a very few number who actually make a living like this, or are willing to get into an honest gun fight. Gang shootings are almost universally one of two things, group attacks where multiple members get together using their group peer pressure and support system to perform an attack (a drive-by being a classic example), or one lone member usually high/drunk/mentally impaired someway some how on a mission. Gang members tend to use the element of surprise in their attacks (drive-bys are designed as an ambush), and the only time a "pitched battle" results from two groups running into each other while headed out to ambush someone. Just like two recon patrols running into each other in the jungle.

A truly tweaked out narcotics abuser isn't going to care about the gun, if others may be CCing, or anything other then getting enough money to get their next fix. They probably aren't even sure what color the sky is or what their name is. Treat them like a rabid dog, worrying about their though process isn't practical.

Criminals in general fear pain, fear embarrassment, and fear death. If they had morale strength and fiber they wouldn't be crooks.

This is a weird question maybe. This would, in theory allow gangs to hang out with all kinds of weapons on their porches and also to tote them openly all around town. Are the cops going to have to harass every OC guy they see every time to make sure he has the license and isn't just walking around with a glock? Sounds kinda dangerous to be a cop in this world. I am sure when questioned some of them would rather draw than go to prison. I dunno, it seems that it will start an arms race on the street. Or make it worse, I guess. Can someone rebutt this for me?

In Texas anyone who is an upstanding citizen can hang out on their porch with firearms so long as they do so in a non-threatening manner.

Most of your "bad criminals" are convicted felons, so problem 1. Most of your "bad criminals" have a substance abuse problem, so they will tend to have the cheapest gun possible shoved in a pants pocket. Most of your criminals in general have no clue about guns. We had a guy robbing people with a .25 auto that didn't have a firing pin, he didn't know that was a problem. Most of the criminals who carry now carry the cheapest POS gun they can find, and have it for 3 reasons.

1) To show it off to their buddies
2) To "protect" themselves
3) If they get really stupid to use it to commit a crime

Crooks know that a pocket knife is not illegal to carry or posses as a convicted felon. Crooks know that it's just as effective a tool of robbery. Crooks know that it's probably more effective then the POS gun they've got if they actually need to use a weapon. Sure OC might give them an option, but few are going to take advantage of it.

Excuse me??? Can you imagine the surprise on the face of a gang-banger who jumps out from a dark alley with a knife to mug you and your SO when you pull a .45ACP? Surprise can be and sometime is the domain of both the offense and the defense.

Human reaction time is on average between .5-1.5 seconds, when EXPECTING something. So complete surprise at being mugged, gives you a reaction time of say 2 seconds flat. Is the guy within 21' of you, and really can you mug someone effectively from further then 5' away? That close I don't care where you gun is, including in your hand, you're SOL. If the guy is willing to press his attack, your best hope is getting cut up and him being DOA.

-Jenrick

 

[DarkSoldier]

I originally posted the following on another thread but it seems appropriate here:

Regarding open carry:

"I guess it's safe to say that most of us, when we see someone we don't know with a gun, are going to do a quick assessment of that person to determine if he/she is just another armed citizen like ourselves or if there is something to be concerned about. I do the same thing when I'm at the range and someone I don't know is shooting on line near me. I watch them until I'm sure they are safe to be around. They are probably, I would hope, watching me the same way.

I don't open carry for a couple of reasons. The first one is, I don't want to attract attention, and in my part of the country, although it's been legal to open carry for nearly twenty years, it still turns heads faster than my second ex-wife.

The second is, if anyone decides to attack me for whatever reason, I'd rather they not know in advance that I'm armed. I like every edge I can get, including that special little surprise.

For those that do, I think (as other posters have pointed out) that how you carry yourself and the attitude you present is critical to how you will be received as an openly armed citizen.

As an example, I was with my wife at a local restaurant last week, both of us carrying concealed. A well dressed older man came in with a woman friend and was being seated near us. I noticed his holstered Smith J frame carried openly on his right hip and looked up catching his eye. Apparently he took offense to the fact that I looked at his gun or at him because he stopped in the aisle, bladed his body toward me and glared at me like he was living out his own personal "gunfighter fantasy" right there in Bob Evans.

I smiled and held his gaze until he looked away and sat down with his wife with his back to me. I let my wife know that the man sitting behind her was armed and that while he might be a jerk, he appeared to be no threat. We enjoyed the rest of our meal and left when we were finished.
In his case, his demeanor will cause more problems for him than his openly carried firearm.

All that said, I'd re-evaluate if I lived where open carry was my only choice. Just my thoughts, not advice or recommendations.”


To those thoughts, let me add the following:

I have no reason to doubt the studies that Mainsail used to frame his position and my disagreement with that position should not be construed as disrespect. But those studies and his conclusions based on them don’t match my 36 years of real world experience in carrying a gun 24/7/365. I’ve carried OC and concealed, off duty and on, in uniform and in plain clothes, for money and on my own time. Based on that body of experience, it is my conclusion that overall, I am in a better position tactically when I am not advertising my status as an armed citizen. That goes for when I am working (I still hunt bad guys for a living) and when I am off the clock.

Mainsail’s experience has obviously left him with a different conclusion and his is certainly just a valid for him as mine is for me.

If folks want to carry openly where it’s legal, it’s their right to do so and their choice to make. But, please understand that when you do wear openly, you are sending a message, consciously or unconsciously. The way your message is interpreted by the people who receive it may not be the message you intended to send. Occasionally this will cause problems and you will have to deal with them.

And I think any of us who choose to carry openly need to accept the fact that other armed citizens (and other unarmed citizens) who don’t know you, your mind set, or your intentions, are going to do a quick and hopefully very discreet assessment of you once they see you are armed, to be certain that you are safe to be around. At least I know I will, just as surely as I do the same little assessment to one degree or another on every (apparently unarmed) person who gets close to me.

Carry openly if it works for you with my blessing (not that you need it). But it's just not for me.

As I’ve said, this is not intended to be advice or a condemnation of other choices. Its just my thoughts on what has worked for me.


Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[Catherine]

Open carry and/or conceal carry should be as normal as putting on your shoes and leaving your house if that is what YOU choose to do.

There should be NO restrictions or 'laws' when it comes to ANY kind of firearm carry in MY not so humble opinion.

If someone does NOT choose to open carry or conceal carry, not even OWN or shoot a firearm... that is THEIR choice aka Free Will.

If someone DOES WANT to open or conceal carry... let them do it! Leave them alone please!

I do NOT and I have never forced a gun into an anti gun person's hands and that includes anti gunners who are allowed to have a firearm in their professional capacity when they don't think that MERE serfs should be allowed to open or conceal firearms. (They are just following the 'law' in NO open carry or NO conceal carry towns/states made by corrupt, special rights politicos that the sheep keep on electing. UGH.)

WHY should an anti gunner get his or her knickers all twisted up and TAKE away a God Given Right backed up by the Second here in the USA? I don't force my 'gun' in THEIR hands. Why should THEY take my gun away from MY hands with their 'laws'? Why should I be left defenseless because of their ignorance and biased opinions in life/death matters?

I would like to see any gun owner, that chooses to do this, open carry proudly and tell the anti gunners and ignorant but willing to LEARN GUNS people something! STOP being ashamed of open carry, people! Open carry is normal as having a purse, a briefcase, etc. in MY opinion.

The police in Maine got after another open carry man because some people saw him with a gun, gasp! Another case... he was let go.

There should be a law for the ELITES, cough, gag and vomit, and I have said this before. If the laws that RESTRICT a person from carrying open or conceal are made by POLITICOS... those POLITICOS should have NO taxpayer paid protection, NO secret service protection for the higher ups, and NO gun rights of their own if they DENY gun rights to OTHER people.

NO politico, NO president, NO Congressman, NO LE person, NO alphabet agency person, and NO MILITARY person should be allowed to have guns (Open and conceal carry!) if ANYONE denies a person from having the same civil/gun rights as 'they' think that THEY DESERVE while they screw the 'little man or lady". When those that THINK and VOTE that THEIR LIVES are worth anymore than YOUR life, your loved ones and my life... well let them know what it is like on the other side of the fence! Let them have NO self defense in ANY capacity - I bet that those bs draconian laws would change pretty quick! They don't want to be left DEFENSELESS, eh?

It sure as well would change with the candidates and all politicos because they like their SPECIAL RIGHTS of gun ownership, their TAXPAYER PAID protection and other perks!

Catherine
An unashamed open carry, middle aged, eyeglass wearing, former widow - now remarried lady.
If they have all of these organizations for x, y and z... they ought to have one for us OC people!

 

[Catherine]

PS

PS:

It should be "LEGAL" anywhere - anyplace!

OPEN and CONCEAL CARRY!

Yours in liberty,

Catherine
MY life is worth just as much as yours, any anti gun politico and any other person who would DENY me my right to self preservation just because it is in another 'territory' or place.

http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

You are here: Webley Page > Lever Action > Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?