The Pitfalls of Open Carry

[Pants]

For anybody in the Buckeye State who doesn't already know this, here's a decent article about open carry:


http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...guns.ART_ART_03-30-08_A1_QQ9PC2U.html?sid=101


While I understand that police have a duty to protect all citizens, particularly from violent felons, it seems foolish to think somebody who was openly carrying a sidearm would fit into that category.

If you were a wild criminal intent on shooting people, would you advertise your gun by open carrying? That's just a silly assumption in my view.

In this particular situation, for this particular agent, "gun" = "potential bad guy". The logic of that is horribly flawed.

But hey, nobody got shot or sued here, so I guess all's well that ends well.


EDIT:

Ironic side note: It's perfectly okay to carry a firearm to protect machines that dispense paper, but carry one to protect your self and watch out...

 

[Flintlock Tom]

Here's my favorite part: "the police agency that enforces the state's alcohol, tobacco and food-stamp laws".

"Alcohol, tobacco and food-stamps", <snort> I wonder if they wear hats that say "ATF"?

 

[Flyfishtom]

Open carry

I don't like open carry for many reasons. We don't tell folks we are carrying when it's concealed so why advertise the same thing with open carry? It lets the bad guys know you have a gun and gives them the advantage of changing tactics. If someone wants to steal a gun there it is. I really just see no reason for it.

 

[waterhouse]

I really just see no reason for it.

It is many orders of magnitude more comfortable.

 

[Nagant]

I don't and wouldn't open carry for a variety of reasons (though it IS within my rights to do so). I thought it was kind of funny how he "wasn't sure if they had drawn their weapons or not" but that the agents "said that they hadn't"... good times... probably saves them some extra paperwork...

 

[JesseL]

I don't like open carry for many reasons.

That's okay, nobody is going to make you open carry.

We don't tell folks we are carrying when it's concealed so why advertise the same thing with open carry?

There is the argument that most criminals don't want to deal with an armed victim and will probably move on to greener pastures.

It lets the bad guys know you have a gun and gives them the advantage of changing tactics.

True. But as I said before, that change in tactics will most likely mean finding a victim that presents fewer risks.

If someone wants to steal a gun there it is.

There's easier ways for even criminals to get guns.

I really just see no reason for it.

That's the beautiful thing about America, need isn't a prerequisite for doing what we want. I can open carry all I want and as long as I behave myself, I don't need to worry about justifying it to anyone.

 

[El Tejon]

"The first thing we need to address: This man has a gun," Weiner said. "We're going to pull our guns.

Does this also apply to police officers? If I see a LEO carrying a pistol, can I pull my gun, Herr Weiner?

 

[WayneConrad]

I read the article, and I read the title of the read. By putting the two together, the moral of the story is:

The pitfall of carrying openly in Ohio is: the police are made to take classes reminding them that it's legal.

Did I get that right?

 

[XDKingslayer]

Herr Weiner

Transvestite?

 

[DKSuddeth]

the notion or theory that the bad guy is going to shoot the open carrier first is just that...a theory. While it certainly is possible, especially if the given criminal is already a murderer, it really is too difficult (in that situation) to say that the same bad guy wouldn't shoot you as the only other patron in the store if you were carrying concealed either.

For most criminals that are only out to rob stuff, they will USUALLY take the cowards route and seek less armed individuals.

 

[El Tejon]

No, just talking on the phone and typing (yet again).

 

[Oro]

I believe what the OP meant was the pitfalls are getting pushed around by the police and handcuffed in front of your neighbors...

Here is a site for anyone interested:
www.opencarry.org

They cover state rules, and try to heighten awareness of it. My theory is this, if I were to carry in an urban area, I would carry concealed. But having the option to get more comfortable and carry openly when hiking, riding, etc. in rural areas is a great thing.

 

[Pants]

I believe what the OP meant was the pitfalls are getting pushed around by the police and handcuffed in front of your neighbors...

Yes, thank you for clarifying.

 

[Urbana John]

I'm all for Open Carry once all our LEO's KNOW that's it's farking legal in the State of Ohio!!!

That's what's WRONG now!!!!

Back when we could count on our local Sheriff or town Marshall to protect us, we quit "packin" our own defense tool. That's when the BG's figured out "we" were easy targets.

Towns got bigger---LEO's got smaller----BG's grew in numbers.

When will the dumbass anti gun [jerks] learn that "we" have the right to "defend" ourselves!!!

The USSC has already said "it's NOT LEO's job" to protect us

Just say, a small town like where I live, Urbana Ohio, passed a law that said, Everyone of age and ability, HAS to carry a weapon for protection or get fined.

So a BG, from Columbus, comes up here to do his "thing" and see all the people walking around on our streets "packin"---HE's goin be thinking WTH!!!!!

****--if that did happen----we could get rid of 90% of our LEO's that WON'T protect us anyway, and let them go back to writing parking tickets, and cleaning up horse **** like they used to!@!

Someone/somebodies are planning an OPEN CARRY day in Urbana in the very near future. Contact member 308Win for more info.

UJ

 

[WayneConrad]

Ok, so let's see.

I use my right. I get detained for half an hour, and then released, and the cops get educated.

That's the terrible, awful cost of using my rights.

And that's what we're so afraid of?

Gawshdarn, save me from this awful police state. I better go back to concealing. This business of exercising my rights is too costly!

 

[Pants]

Wayne,

You're right, it's not that high a price to pay for educating the police. That's assuming of course, that something like this never happens to any one else ever again. In that case it could be argued that it was "worth the hassle" for this particular citizen

Parenthetically, can you imagine any other situation in which this statement :

I use my right. I get detained for half an hour

would sit well with you?

There might be one, I don't know. I'm just curious.

 

[WayneConrad]

I'm going to admit to you, straight up, that being detained for half an hour for committing no crime would never sit well with me. Of course not. I'd be annoyed. I know what's right, and being hassled for no crime at all isn't right. I love my freedom, and I'm not a criminal. Being handcuffed would be humiliating.

But making change happen isn't always about doing what's right for me. Sometimes you gotta grit you teeth and suck it up.

Think about any other struggle of history--revolutionary war, civil rights struggles, whatever, I don't care what. Set your way back machine, and go ask any of those boys if they wouldn't rather trade places with us, and trade their risks for ours, their problems for ours. What are we whining about?

Sometimes it's about taking little risks, or even unknown risks. Here we have a risk that is pretty much known, and not all that big. So... what's the problem?

 

[Pants]

The problem is a contextual one.

In the context of the way back machine, this is indeed a minor hassle.

In the context of the assertion of rights, it is horrendous. We have the right to speak (mostly), travel freely (mostly), buy and sell what we like (mostly), worship (almost) any way we please, etc. In none of these cases would it be considered "inconvenient" to be detained by the police in the course of exercising such rights- it would be considered outrageous.

This is, admitedly, a theoretical distinction, but one which I think is appropriate for a forum of this nature.

Having said all that, I think you're right. My first reaction on reading the article was "Hmm. Sucks for that guy. Well, now at least the cops know better."

Let's agree to agree.

 

[WayneConrad]

Pants, You said it perfectly. Ain't just agreeing to agree.

And, welcome to THR, friend.

 

[jrfoxx]

My problem with the cops detaining someone for 30+ minutes, when they now, or should know, OC is perfectly legal, and IMHO, have NO PC to detain someone JUST because they have a gun in a holster, is that it can MORE than just suck and be an inconvenience. What if being detained for that 1/2 hour causes the guy to be late for work, for which he is then fired? That goes far beyond just being a sucky inconvenience to me. LEO should be PREEMPTIVELY trained and made aware OC is legal in their jurisdiction, just like they would e trained and made aware that ccw with a permit is legal, or medical marijuana is legal, or driving a car with a license is legal, etc. It shouldn't only happen after the fact, when someone gets hassled or worse for something thats perfectly legal.

NONE of the above should be construed to mean I don't agree with, or like OC, and think it should be 100% legal EVERYWHERE ccw is legal.I personally OC on occasion, and fully support all who do it when and where its legal. I also fully support those who chose to NOT OC, and ccw only.

My beef with the whole hing is that people should not be getting stopped, cuffed, scrutinized, etc by LEO's in places OC is legal. They should know the laws they are paid to enforce, and abide by them. And I'm not LEO bashing, as I think MOST of the time it isn't really the fault of the individual officer, but the department(or academy) that failed to properly train hem in the law in the first place.

That sad, I'm much happier they get trained after an incident, than not getting trained at all.I just think it shouldn't take an incident that could cause serious problems or a law abiding person to get the training done.

 

[Mainsail]

…have NO PC to detain someone JUST because they have a gun in a holster, is that it can MORE than just suck and be an inconvenience

You’re confusing your terms. The police do not need PC (probable cause) to detain a person, they need PC to arrest a person. To detain (or seize) a person, they need reasonable articuable suspicion that a crime is afoot. If open carry is legal and the police detain someone merely because they are observed carrying a pistol; it is the officer who is breaking the law.

I’m not nit-picking here, the terms are very important.

 

[Catherine]

I like open carry. There should be NO reason to stop anyone for open carry unless he or she was in the middle of doing a dirty deed = crime. Otherwise leave people ALONE!

I think that open carry and conceal carry should be legal everywhere, including in the District of Criminals, because that is what the SECOND means.

It is not complicated... it is your politicians and others who made it complicated and against the 'law'.

They are the law breakers... they passed UNconstitutional gun laws and formed SEVERAL stupid alphabet agencies that should be abolished.

Respectfully yours,

Catherine - Armed and Female

 

[LAK Supply]

While I understand that police have a duty to protect all citizens, particularly from violent felons

The police have no duty to protect you. Their duty is for the greater good of the public... they are not responsible for your personal protection in any way, shape or form.

I OC once in a while... it's a protected right here. The funny thing is that stupid people tend to be VERY nice when I'm walking through a store with a gun on my hip.... I want to tell them to put the bubbly attitude away... I'm not going to shoot them.

 

[jrfoxx]

Mainsail- you are probably correct, I am not a lawyer, or even very good at unerstanding the way laws are written, and the way they are (in court)interpreted, and the way judges,lawyers, etc do things and what not. So thanks for making what I was MEANING to say clearer.I thught PC and 'suspician' meant the same thing really.My bad.Thanks again

 

[happybrew]

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here. I'm not against open carry; however, suppose a police officer observes a man with a slung shotgun about to enter a bank. Does he have probable cause to stop and detain the man to determine his purpose?

Suppose a person open carries a handgun into a pharmacy that has been robbed multiple times by addicts/dealers in search of Oxycontin? Does the police officer have probable cause to detain the man?

Suppose a person is observed walking down the street with a rifle, and the police receive phone calls from alarmed citizens saying an armed man was stalking people? (actually occurred in my town, man was merely transporting said rifle from his vehicle to his house in an urban area when parking in a two block radius was full. He had no choice, and faced no charges or arrest after police interviewed him on the street and determined nothing was wrong).

Suppose a man is seen walking back and forth along a busy street with a rifle with no apparent purpose? (happened in another town I lived in many years ago. He was a mentally ill homeless person. I don't recall what happened to him, I think he may have been charged with something which remanded him to mental heath professionals eventually, I don't recall any jail time.)

When exactly is it okay or not okay to stop a man (or woman) with an openly carried firearm? I'd certainly call the police if a man wearing gang clothing was carrying a firearm outside my house. I wouldn't appreciate it if I was at the checkout at the local grocery store if I was cuffed and interviewed for open carrying at the checkout, but I would understand it. So where is the line drawn?

happybrew