Primus
Regular Member
Yea gotta be concealed brother. Long sleeve shirt at all times. And a tax if they are more then 32 inches around.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Is handgun 'open carry' safer for me than 'concealed carry'?
- Thread starter papabling
- Start date
davidmcbeth
Banned
What college do you play for?
wittmeba
Regular Member
papabling said:
As Golddigger states - There shouldn't need to be any special law. The Constitution should fill this bill as well
And when I see someone carrying a long rifle - Are they really carrying for self-defense or some other reason?
Last edited:
B
Bikenut
Guest
If the Constitution fills this bill what difference does it make what their reason is?As Golddigger states - There shouldn't need to be any special law. The Constitution should fill this bill as well
And when I see someone carrying a long rifle - Are they really carrying for self-defense or some other reason?
Arin Morris
Regular Member
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
I didn't say I did
I think the most recent bill filed (Monday) is HB 195. www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB00195I.htm . Of course over the next few months it will probably be amended as it goes through the process when the 84th legislature gets going.
Life is good. :banana:
Last edited:
wittmeba
Regular Member
You are right...it doesn't or shouldn't matter why they are carrying. But I am still curious
B
Bikenut
Guest
Please note that my response is not intended to be smartarsery.....Originally Posted by Bikenut
If the Constitution fills this bill what difference does it make what their reason is?
You are right...it doesn't or shouldn't matter why they are carrying. But I am still curious
A person's reasons could vary from protesting certain law(s), to making a political statement, to wanting to go down the street to his/her friend's house to show them their new purchase, to walking to a hunting spot, or as an effort to educate and desensitize the general public.... and for self defense if that is the only firearm they own or can legally carry openly like in Texas. Any and all of those reasons (and any others that are legal) are valid simply because it is the right to bear arms... not the privilege to bear only certain arms that other people consider "appropriate" for reasons other people deem "reasonable" and "acceptable".
BurgerBoy
Regular Member
I OC a Gen 3 Glock 23 every day and have never had any problems with it.
wittmeba
Regular Member
Bikenut,
No problem here and I agree with what you are saying.
No problem here and I agree with what you are saying.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Depends on who you ask and where you live. Even in OC states some who are employed by the state would "encourage" you to CC for your and societies benefit.
utbagpiper
Banned
These might have been real considerations a few years ago, but with the increased number of well designed firearms and holsters specifically targeting the civilian self-defense market, I'm not sure these are the primary concerns any more.
Today, I think the real tradeoff on the personal "safety" of OC vs CC works out something more like this:
-With OC are bad guys less likely to target me at all and simply move on to a softer target? I'd much rather never have to draw my gun. We could argue that "advertising" we are armed encourages bad guys to move along preventing any need to actually use the gun.
-If OC is more comfortable, am I more likely to carry a gun more often? Virtually any gun in hand beats the perfect gun left at home.
-Will OC lead to bad guys targeting me first? Do I lose the advantage of surprise that I would have by CC? This is the most common argument against OC I see. I'm still looking for documentation of it actually happening.
-Does OC incur a higher risk of my gun being taken from me? Maybe. One is advised to use a proper retention holster and be fully aware of his surroundings. This latter part may actually lead to increased safety. If my OCd firearm, itself, doesn't discourage bad guys, does my heightened situational awareness because I am OCing give me the advantage in recognizing and responding to emerging threats better?
-Does OC place me at increased risk for danger from police? This is a more subtle version of the old "cops will see your gun and shoot you" concern. I can't claim to be an expert here. OCing has caused me to have one or two interactions with police that I would have avoided by CCing. But a combination of situational awareness to see the encounter developing and then appropriate comportment toward the officers made those interactions safe and not unpleasant. They became non-confrontational opportunities to provide some education to my local police officers. OCing where illegal, presenting a threat to officer safety, and other such conduct might actually create a higher risk of injury from police.
There are, of course, issues beyond "safety" to consider.
Beyond safety, what is personal comfort factor? Especially in warm climates or otherwise when wearing clothing not entirely suited to conceal a firearm? What about a desire to make a political or social statement, to provide education, or to be a part of normalizing the possession of firearms by private citizens?
On the flip side, there is the increased hassle factor in some cases. In my home State, most "no gun" signs do not carry any force of law, but a request to leave a business can result in trespassing charges if refused, and if nothing else, can interrupt a shopping trip. CCing into locations where it is legal, but guns are not wanted can be easier.
This is an OC site. And I'm very supportive of OCing with the calculated intent of increasing public tolerance for private citizens being in possession of firearms in public locations. But I don't think the question is nearly so much between OC and CC as it is to be prepared to defend ourselves and our families and to improve the legal and social situation so as to eliminate as many barriers as possible to free exercise of that right.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
I read your prior, longer post about long guns. I don't disagree. And I also appreciate that other people's paranoid fantasies are not a mortgage on my rights. I won't cede my right to conceal carry my handgun into a college classroom, grocery store, my kids' grade school classroom (Utah gun laws allow me to carry almost anywhere with my permit), a public park, or a hospital simply because someone might be uncomfortable. Ditto for OCing my firearm into those same locations.
Logically, I would then hold exactly the same view with regard to OCing a long gun.
I certainly oppose legal limits on OCing a long gun.
And yet, in so many things, some introspection and thought is warranted.
The goal of this site, and presumably of most of those who frequent, is to normalize the public to private citizens carrying firearms. An associate here in Utah has observed that in this matter--as with biology and many social matters--"exposure increases tolerance." This is true, to a point.
I can increase your tolerance to measles by giving you exposure to a weakened version of the virus. You build tolerance without serious risk of contracting the actual illness. Of course, this is a much preferred course over simply having you go spend some time in close contact with someone who has a full blown case of measles. Sure, you might manage to just build tolerance. But you could very easily contract the full disease, fail to recover and die.
Socially, similar things happen. If I push social boundaries a bit at a time the public is likely to adjust. I can then push a bit more later and get more adjustment. Consider on what has happened in movies since Clark Gable first uttered (and the studio was fined for) his famous words about not giving a damn. In 1939 that was pushing some serious boundaries. What if the content of one of today's typical action/adventure or even dramas had been splashed across movie screens in 1939? How would inter-racial, homosexual sex scenes have been received? Would 1939 society have adjusted? Or would there have been blowback with legal penalties, increased censorship, and maybe even supreme court decisions that would have more narrowly interpreted the 1st amendment to not cover such obscene conduct that shocks to the core of then social values?
I think there are places and times and circumstances where the OCing of a long gun is beyond question appropriate. I think are some circumstances where OCing a long gun is going to be pushing the current social limits such that society can reasonably be expected to adjust. And I also think there are some circumstances where OCing a long gun is so far beyond current social norms that to do so with any intent of normalizing guns is, at best, a fool's errand, and quite possibly counterproductive.
Nope. I don't think it should be illegal any more than I think it should be illegal to stand on a street corner yelling "F the government" all day long.
But I think there are circumstances where it is stupid, counterproductive, and imprudent to OC a long gun IF one's intent is to normalize the possession of guns. And I'm willing to stand up and say as much.
If one's intent is not to normalize the lawful possession of guns, but instead to act as some kind of agent provocateur to stir up fear and panic and backlash, well I'll have words to say about that as well.
In total, I think I can make a pretty good case that Utah has about the best gun laws in the nation. Not perfect. But in total, very difficult to beat for ability to legally and socially possess a firearm for self-defense virtually everywhere you typically go in a given day. One area we needed to improve on was to make 100% clear that a concealed carry permit did not, actually require a person to conceal. Nothing said you had to. But a few entities like a University and one or two big city police departments were trying to claim that OCing a handgun might be tantamount to disorderly conduct, or some other catch-all bad conduct statute.
What should have been a quick and easy fix in the legislature turned into a 4-year slug fest because for 4 years in a row, various individuals decided that they were going to OC various long guns in highly urban, sometimes fairly provocative manners. I'm sure out of shear coincidence, this didn't happen during hunting season, but always relatively shortly before our legislative session began. One guy was actually cited and eventually plead out to a disorderly conduct charge. Seems he hadn't given any thought to the costs of a decent defense lawyer nor spending even 30 days in jail if convicted. Obviously, such a person hasn't given much thought to how his conduct might actually be received by society and what political or legal ramifications might follow.
Were these fellows gun grabbers causing trouble, or just well-meaning but misguided folks who lacked sufficient thought? I don't know and it doesn't really matter. The effect was exactly the same.
Instead of devoting resources to taking 3 or 4 steps toward greater legal liberty, we devoted resources to getting the first step. And even after 4 years, we ended up with a less than perfect law. Rather than a blanket protection against disorderly conduct (and 12 other catch-all laws the the University legal counsel managed to find and keep on tap to harass gun owners on campus), we got a protection for just disorderly conduct, and only for guns that are "holstered or encased". So if you want to carry your long gun in a scabbard, holster, or gun case, you can't be cited for DoC just for having the gun. If you want to carry it in a sling, you can still face DoC charges if the totality of the circumstances look like DoC. It is not an automatic or black and white violation. But the gun can be one factor for the court to consider.
I support the constitutional right to OC a long gun.
I really wish a few folks had chosen to be a bit more prudent in when and how they exercised that right relative to where social norms were. Rather than advancing the cause, they impeded it.
Social norms here said that OCing a handgun was getting accepted. OCing a handgun on campus and in certain, specific localities was still pushing boundaries. But OCing a long gun when, where, and how these folks did resulted in public and legislative backlash. Fortunately, we didn't get any bad laws. But we had to fight a lot harder to get less good laws than we otherwise could have.
At the end of the day, the public votes. And anyone familiar with the lasting effects of the Black Panthers carrying rifles into the California Statehouse in 1967 should consider on how bad backlash can be. Anyone not familiar with that history should go learn it quickly, lest he find himself needlessly repeating it somewhere else.
Charles
Last edited:
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
I wonder what would happen if we could do a youtube collab. With charles and nutnfancy.
[emoji1] [emoji1] [emoji1] [emoji1]
Most people will not read a wall of text
OC for ME
Regular Member
Forum Rule: (14) LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control and lack of trigger guard coverage, we cannot support long gun open carry.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Fair warning... wall of text below.... yet it would be unfair to not quote the post I'm replying to in it's entirety...
It doesn't matter if public opinion doesn't like how a right is exercised... what matters is so many people, including many of those who are supportive of rights, have fallen for the idea that the exercising of a right should only be done according to what they personally believe to be....... "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable". All 3 of those things are subjective determinations based on ... opinion.
Thing is... it doesn't matter which right we talk about. If folks allow their right to bear arms, or their right to free speech, or their right to worship, to be limited by what other people consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable" then we don't have the freedom to exercise rights.... all we have are privileges that are controlled by the opinions of others.
Yes people vote. All too often they vote on issues they have absolutely no clue about. And hiding (not exercising) a right does nothing to give folks a clue....but when people exercise their rights despite public opinion the public begins to learn about that right ... and public opinion changes. That has been shown to be true by a relatively recent change in public opinion concerning the right to bear arms brought about by those who chose to openly carry sidearms..... despite public opinion. And that change happened in a very few years as opposed to the decades of folks writing their congressmen and the NRA's lobbying efforts. I'm not knocking the efforts, or the results, of those who write letters... I'm mentioning that actually exercising the right has been more effective in the area of getting the public to accept the actual exercising of that right.
And, at least to me, to complain that how others exercise their right to bear arms making it harder to further the right to bear arms seems rather odd. Should folks not exercise their rights so it would be easier to fight in order to gain the ability to.... exercise a right? That seems to be the same logic of "just because you can (you have the right) doesn't mean you should (actually dare to exercise it)" used to support the idea that just because I have the right doesn't mean I should exercise that right in a way someone else has the opinion is "unreasonable", "inappropriate", and/or "unacceptable".
The following is a general comment and question that are not directed at any individual(s):
Either we have the freedom to exercise our right to bear arms or we have the privilege of being allowed to exercise that right but only in ways that other people, whether outright gun grabbers or those within the gun community itself, consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or ................... "acceptable".
Which one do you want?
You might oppose legal limits on OCing anything other than a pistol but the part of your post I put in bold for emphasis shows you are in favor of allowing public, and your own, opinion to set limits on when and how someone else exercises their Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. And your post goes into great detail in order to justify those limits simply because public, and your, opinion may consider exercising the right to bear arms with a certain arm to be "unreasonable", "inappropriate", and/or "unacceptable". Doesn't matter if that is applied to bearing that arm in general or just in certain ways at certain times for certain reasons.. it still comes down to someone else wanting their opinion to limit the right to bear arms by establishing the criteria of what is "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable". Please understand that the criteria for what is "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable" also sets the criteria for what is "unreasonable", "inappropriate", and/or "unacceptable".Originally Posted by Bikenut
Please note that my response is not intended to be smartarsery.....
A person's reasons could vary from protesting certain law(s), to making a political statement, to wanting to go down the street to his/her friend's house to show them their new purchase, to walking to a hunting spot, or as an effort to educate and desensitize the general public.... and for self defense if that is the only firearm they own or can legally carry openly like in Texas. Any and all of those reasons (and any others that are legal) are valid simply because it is the right to bear arms... not the privilege to bear only certain arms that other people consider "appropriate" for reasons other people deem "reasonable" and "acceptable".
I read your prior, longer post about long guns. I don't disagree. And I also appreciate that other people's paranoid fantasies are not a mortgage on my rights. I won't cede my right to conceal carry my handgun into a college classroom, grocery store, my kids' grade school classroom (Utah gun laws allow me to carry almost anywhere with my permit), a public park, or a hospital simply because someone might be uncomfortable. Ditto for OCing my firearm into those same locations.
Logically, I would then hold exactly the same view with regard to OCing a long gun.
I certainly oppose legal limits on OCing a long gun.
And yet, in so many things, some introspection and thought is warranted.
The goal of this site, and presumably of most of those who frequent, is to normalize the public to private citizens carrying firearms. An associate here in Utah has observed that in this matter--as with biology and many social matters--"exposure increases tolerance." This is true, to a point.
I can increase your tolerance to measles by giving you exposure to a weakened version of the virus. You build tolerance without serious risk of contracting the actual illness. Of course, this is a much preferred course over simply having you go spend some time in close contact with someone who has a full blown case of measles. Sure, you might manage to just build tolerance. But you could very easily contract the full disease, fail to recover and die.
Socially, similar things happen. If I push social boundaries a bit at a time the public is likely to adjust. I can then push a bit more later and get more adjustment. Consider on what has happened in movies since Clark Gable first uttered (and the studio was fined for) his famous words about not giving a damn. In 1939 that was pushing some serious boundaries. What if the content of one of today's typical action/adventure or even dramas had been splashed across movie screens in 1939? How would inter-racial, homosexual sex scenes have been received? Would 1939 society have adjusted? Or would there have been blowback with legal penalties, increased censorship, and maybe even supreme court decisions that would have more narrowly interpreted the 1st amendment to not cover such obscene conduct that shocks to the core of then social values?
I think there are places and times and circumstances where the OCing of a long gun is beyond question appropriate. I think are some circumstances where OCing a long gun is going to be pushing the current social limits such that society can reasonably be expected to adjust. And I also think there are some circumstances where OCing a long gun is so far beyond current social norms that to do so with any intent of normalizing guns is, at best, a fool's errand, and quite possibly counterproductive.
Nope. I don't think it should be illegal any more than I think it should be illegal to stand on a street corner yelling "F the government" all day long.
But I think there are circumstances where it is stupid, counterproductive, and imprudent to OC a long gun IF one's intent is to normalize the possession of guns. And I'm willing to stand up and say as much.
If one's intent is not to normalize the lawful possession of guns, but instead to act as some kind of agent provocateur to stir up fear and panic and backlash, well I'll have words to say about that as well.
In total, I think I can make a pretty good case that Utah has about the best gun laws in the nation. Not perfect. But in total, very difficult to beat for ability to legally and socially possess a firearm for self-defense virtually everywhere you typically go in a given day. One area we needed to improve on was to make 100% clear that a concealed carry permit did not, actually require a person to conceal. Nothing said you had to. But a few entities like a University and one or two big city police departments were trying to claim that OCing a handgun might be tantamount to disorderly conduct, or some other catch-all bad conduct statute.
What should have been a quick and easy fix in the legislature turned into a 4-year slug fest because for 4 years in a row, various individuals decided that they were going to OC various long guns in highly urban, sometimes fairly provocative manners. I'm sure out of shear coincidence, this didn't happen during hunting season, but always relatively shortly before our legislative session began. One guy was actually cited and eventually plead out to a disorderly conduct charge. Seems he hadn't given any thought to the costs of a decent defense lawyer nor spending even 30 days in jail if convicted. Obviously, such a person hasn't given much thought to how his conduct might actually be received by society and what political or legal ramifications might follow.
Were these fellows gun grabbers causing trouble, or just well-meaning but misguided folks who lacked sufficient thought? I don't know and it doesn't really matter. The effect was exactly the same.
Instead of devoting resources to taking 3 or 4 steps toward greater legal liberty, we devoted resources to getting the first step. And even after 4 years, we ended up with a less than perfect law. Rather than a blanket protection against disorderly conduct (and 12 other catch-all laws the the University legal counsel managed to find and keep on tap to harass gun owners on campus), we got a protection for just disorderly conduct, and only for guns that are "holstered or encased". So if you want to carry your long gun in a scabbard, holster, or gun case, you can't be cited for DoC just for having the gun. If you want to carry it in a sling, you can still face DoC charges if the totality of the circumstances look like DoC. It is not an automatic or black and white violation. But the gun can be one factor for the court to consider.
I support the constitutional right to OC a long gun.
I really wish a few folks had chosen to be a bit more prudent in when and how they exercised that right relative to where social norms were. Rather than advancing the cause, they impeded it.
Social norms here said that OCing a handgun was getting accepted. OCing a handgun on campus and in certain, specific localities was still pushing boundaries. But OCing a long gun when, where, and how these folks did resulted in public and legislative backlash. Fortunately, we didn't get any bad laws. But we had to fight a lot harder to get less good laws than we otherwise could have.
At the end of the day, the public votes. And anyone familiar with the lasting effects of the Black Panthers carrying rifles into the California Statehouse in 1967 should consider on how bad backlash can be. Anyone not familiar with that history should go learn it quickly, lest he find himself needlessly repeating it somewhere else.
Charles
It doesn't matter if public opinion doesn't like how a right is exercised... what matters is so many people, including many of those who are supportive of rights, have fallen for the idea that the exercising of a right should only be done according to what they personally believe to be....... "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable". All 3 of those things are subjective determinations based on ... opinion.
Thing is... it doesn't matter which right we talk about. If folks allow their right to bear arms, or their right to free speech, or their right to worship, to be limited by what other people consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or "acceptable" then we don't have the freedom to exercise rights.... all we have are privileges that are controlled by the opinions of others.
Yes people vote. All too often they vote on issues they have absolutely no clue about. And hiding (not exercising) a right does nothing to give folks a clue....but when people exercise their rights despite public opinion the public begins to learn about that right ... and public opinion changes. That has been shown to be true by a relatively recent change in public opinion concerning the right to bear arms brought about by those who chose to openly carry sidearms..... despite public opinion. And that change happened in a very few years as opposed to the decades of folks writing their congressmen and the NRA's lobbying efforts. I'm not knocking the efforts, or the results, of those who write letters... I'm mentioning that actually exercising the right has been more effective in the area of getting the public to accept the actual exercising of that right.
And, at least to me, to complain that how others exercise their right to bear arms making it harder to further the right to bear arms seems rather odd. Should folks not exercise their rights so it would be easier to fight in order to gain the ability to.... exercise a right? That seems to be the same logic of "just because you can (you have the right) doesn't mean you should (actually dare to exercise it)" used to support the idea that just because I have the right doesn't mean I should exercise that right in a way someone else has the opinion is "unreasonable", "inappropriate", and/or "unacceptable".
The following is a general comment and question that are not directed at any individual(s):
Either we have the freedom to exercise our right to bear arms or we have the privilege of being allowed to exercise that right but only in ways that other people, whether outright gun grabbers or those within the gun community itself, consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or ................... "acceptable".
Which one do you want?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Let me condense it for you somewhat~~
"I support (insert right) BUT~~
"I support (insert right) BUT~~