Why I'm not on board for open carry

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

Say baddie sees you and sees no gun because you're carrying concealed, he decides to rob you because you look like an easy target. He pulls a pistol from under his coat, points it at you and demands your money. You're going to reach for your pistol now?

Click to expand...

Good point.

Click to expand...

It's a great point and he's absolutely correct. While there are a few who could draw and fire under these circumstances, most would lose.

The thing with OC'ing is, you will most likely never know how many times your "little friend" may have spoken silently for you and turned a BG away.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

Say baddie sees you and sees no gun because you're carrying concealed, he decides to rob you because you look like an easy target. He pulls a pistol from under his coat, points it at you and demands your money. You're going to reach for your pistol now?

Click to expand...

Good point.

Click to expand...

This is the reason why I love pocket revolvers/pistols as a BUG to your CC or OC. That would be the only way I might would draw in this situation

imported post

darwin-t wrote:

1. I carry solely for self defense. Allowing bad guys to see my gun eliminates the element of surprise.

2. Bad guys seeing my pistol may actually make me a target - say during a holdup. They could very well just shoot anybody that is armed immediately to eliminate the threat to them.

3. Someone could walk up behind me and take my gun. That would be something I'd have to continually worry about if I carried openly.

3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.

I like things the way they are. Indiana is one of the best states in the country for gun owners.

Click to expand...

I right unexercised is a right lost.

If more people OCd then it wouldnt be so out of place and people would get used to it. Yes, that would take a lot of people and a long time, but the idea still remains. Wouldnt you rather know if some one was armed rather than having to watch everbody? I have never understood the reasoning behind requiring concealed carry. Its like out of sight out of mind. You have done nothing but push your fears to the side, instead of facing them. I pray evertime I walk into a store some one will come talk to me about me OCing. Just so I can get the chance to educate them on their right to protect themselves and their loved ones. I also pray it isnt an ignorant LEO.

imported post

swillden wrote:

darwin-t wrote:

3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.

Click to expand...

I OC regularly, but I do think this is a valid argument. The result of the argument, however, isn't that we should avoid OC, it's that we should think about how and where we OC.

The political goals of OC'ing are best served by OC'ing in places and manners that are inoffensive. Inevitably, people who are afraid of guns will be nervous the first few times, but if they're carried by people who look responsible and upstanding the response will be less severe, and eventually they will become desensitized. That's the goal, to gradually build the population's comfort.

Of course, there are OC'ers who will reply "I shouldn't have to dress in any certain way to exercise my God-given, constitutionally-protected rights," and will proceed to OC covered in piercings and tattoos, wearing spiked leather and chains. I agree that they SHOULDN'T have to dress in any particular way to exercise their rights, but they're really doing us a disservice by associating OC with thuggishness. IMO, they should work on desensitizing the public to either OC or their style of dress, because both at once is too much and is likely to send people running to their legislators to ban OC.

This is less of a problem in some states than others, because some states have language in their state constitutions that strongly protects OC. Even in those states, though, it's worth keeping in mind that constitutions can be amended -- or ignored.

Click to expand...

Not everyone who carries, whether openly or concealed, is out to educate the public or to promote acceptance of OC. I am a 6'6" Black male covered with tattoos and wear my hear in cornrows. My style of dress is the "hip hop" style, mostly loose fitting jeans and oversized t-shirts. Even though OC is not my preferred mode of carry, if for some reason it did become my preferred mode of carry, as long as I'm going about my business and not harming anyone, I would be perfectly within my rights to do it no matter what I'm wearing. If anyone is frightened by me, that's their problem; my primary reason for carrying is first to protect myself; promoting OC acceptance is secondary as far as I'm concerned. Furthermore, you see anyone who dresses this way as associating OC with thuggishness; I see it as showing that people from all walks of life can peaceably exercise RKBA.

imported post

tattedupboy wrote:

swillden wrote:

darwin-t wrote:

3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.

Click to expand...

I OC regularly, but I do think this is a valid argument. The result of the argument, however, isn't that we should avoid OC, it's that we should think about how and where we OC.

The political goals of OC'ing are best served by OC'ing in places and manners that are inoffensive. Inevitably, people who are afraid of guns will be nervous the first few times, but if they're carried by people who look responsible and upstanding the response will be less severe, and eventually they will become desensitized. That's the goal, to gradually build the population's comfort.

Of course, there are OC'ers who will reply "I shouldn't have to dress in any certain way to exercise my God-given, constitutionally-protected rights," and will proceed to OC covered in piercings and tattoos, wearing spiked leather and chains. I agree that they SHOULDN'T have to dress in any particular way to exercise their rights, but they're really doing us a disservice by associating OC with thuggishness. IMO, they should work on desensitizing the public to either OC or their style of dress, because both at once is too much and is likely to send people running to their legislators to ban OC.

This is less of a problem in some states than others, because some states have language in their state constitutions that strongly protects OC. Even in those states, though, it's worth keeping in mind that constitutions can be amended -- or ignored.

Click to expand...

Not everyone who carries, whether openly or concealed, is out to educate the public or to promote acceptance of OC. I am a 6'6" Black male covered with tattoos and wear my hear in cornrows. My style of dress is the "hip hop" style, mostly loose fitting jeans and oversized t-shirts. Even though OC is not my preferred mode of carry, if for some reason it did become my preferred mode of carry, as long as I'm going about my business and not harming anyone, I would be perfectly within my rights to do it no matter what I'm wearing. If anyone is frightened by me, that's their problem; my primary reason for carrying is first to protect myself; promoting OC acceptance is secondary as far as I'm concerned. Furthermore, you see anyone who dresses this way as associating OC with thuggishness; I see it as showing that people from all walks of life can peaceably exercise RKBA.

Click to expand...

You make a few good points, but theassociation with "thuggishness" is valid considering that style of dress was adopted primarly for the illegal undetected concealment of firearms. Why adopt a styledirectly relatedthe very nature of what good citizens are trying to protect themselves from?"Because I can", or "it's their problem" are the very same attitudes that cause the stereotype and culture perpetuation.

Please by all means protect yourself, carry how you please, and dress how you please. I simply suggest that you question the message your "steez" issending out to the world.. and if you don't care about that, think about how the message you send out dictates how the world treats you.

imported post

I've noted this elsewhere, in other forums --

Gun forums generally . . . seem to attract the "cyber nija" crowd. I've read the posts about the guy who keeps his Glock on the vanity while he showers. That's a bit over the top for me. "Primary weapons and back-up guns . . . " One post showed the "daily carry" rig some nut had cooked up . . . it didn't quite have an Alice Pack, shelter half and entrenching tool, but it was pretty close.

I've tossed out the comment and found considerable agreement. There's an enclave in too many of these forums compensating for feelings of inadequacy. They feel threatened and seem fixated on somehow manipulating events so they can bust a cap on someone in lawful, justified, self defense.

Open carry particulary -- It's legal in this state. I open carry a great deal, "in the field" for outdoor recreation. I don't open carry to the opera, or to the bridge club. People who do are looking to get into a confrontation.

What I read in these forums, and textual analysis is my formal academic field, is a lot of confrontational rhetoric -- "How can I get in someone's face about open carry and be vindicated by the legal process."

Here's the short answer:

Open carry may be entirely legal where you are. But private property owners, private businesses have the legal right to bar you from their property. If you're being "in your face" municipalities have the legal right to bar you based on "disorderly conduct."

Open carry, legal or not -- if you're bringing a firearm to the party, anyone sponsoring that "party," event, venue, business, etc . . . can bar you from access AND have you arrested for disorderly conduct, brandishing, menacing, harassment, threat, intimidation, or most any other charge they might care to trot out on a multiple pleading.

RKBA is a constitutional right. But with rights go responsibilities. Scalia's majority opinion cites numerous case law instances where "keep and bear arms" was lawfully and justifiably denied because it constituted "social mischief."

Try to remember that next time you want to take your gun to town.

Flame away -- call me a troll. But let's remember that any statement you make will be used as evidence here to further my case.

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

Open carry particulary -- It's legal in this state. I open carry a great deal, "in the field" for outdoor recreation. I don't open carry to the opera, or to the bridge club. People who do are looking to get into a confrontation.

What I read in these forums, and textual analysis is my formal academic field, is a lot of confrontational rhetoric -- "How can I get in someone's face about open carry and be vindicated by the legal process."

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone open carries just to insult others and get in their face. I honestly don't care who I offend, but my goal is to make it less offensive by making my self a polite example of a person who carries a gun. Also,I don't believe one should have to ask the government to carry, and open carry is the only legal way to defend myself with a firearm.

Here's the short answer:

Open carry, legal or not -- if you're bringing a firearm to the party, anyone sponsoring that "party," event, venue, business, etc . . . can bar you from access AND have you arrested for disorderly conduct, brandishing, menacing, harassment, threat, intimidation, or most any other charge they might care to trot out on a multiple pleading.

Click to expand...

No, you are wrong, private business does not have the right to have you arrested for criminal acts when you have committed no criminal act.

They have the right to deny access to you, and if you refuse to leave they have the right to have you removed for tresspassing, which is a totally different thing.

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

...
Here's the short answer:

Open carry may be entirely legal where you are. But private property owners, private businesses have the legal right to bar you from their property. If you're being "in your face" municipalities have the legal right to bar you based on "disorderly conduct."

Click to expand...

Well here in PA - there is no disorderly conduct statute so not a problem for us:lol::lol:
We also have state preemption so there are consistent laws across the state:lol::lol::lol:

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

Say baddie sees you and sees no gun because you're carrying concealed, he decides to rob you because you look like an easy target. He pulls a pistol from under his coat, points it at you and demands your money. You're going to reach for your pistol now?

Click to expand...

Good point.

Click to expand...

It's a great point and he's absolutely correct. While there are a few who could draw and fire under these circumstances, most would lose.

The thing with OC'ing is, you will most likely never know how many times your "little friend" may have spoken silently for you and turned a BG away.

Click to expand...

That is a great point and I wonder how many CC'ers ARE robbed while carrying? Of course we'll never know as that would be too big a blow to their "tactical" ego.

imported post

I know what he is saying about the ninjas. Some people seem a little over the top. As if they are carrying so they can be a hero. But that's not everyone that carries. I carry all the time and I don't look for trouble. The reason I OC is mostly for comfort and deterance. I'd much rather carry openly and deter a would-be criminal from ever commiting a crime than carry concealed, have him commit a felony, and then I have to draw my weapon. If you want to be 'tacti-cool' you shouldn't OC, because most bad guys are going to go the other way and you'll never get to be the hero.

I'm also looking for society to respects its own laws. If you guarantee a right in the document that is the cornerstone of your country and then expect people to exercise their right in only a certain way or specific instance then what the hell was the point of putting it in there? Just like the right to free press and freedom of religion. I shouldn't be made to feel like I'm the bad guy for carrying a bible or speaking my mind. Why should any other right be different?

imported post

Read the Heller opinion, front to back, references, notes, citations. Read the dissenting opinions of Stevens and Breyer. Then see if you can't integrate the stare decisis into some of your reactionary rhetoric.

The other thing I find in these forums is that people don't read and comprehend very well.

As regards Pennsylvania and "disorderly conduct" statutes . . . Don't give up your day gig in order to practice law.

imported post

SCOTUS - What's your point? I mean, really, is there some kind of agenda you're pushing?

No reasonable person would disagree that there are "some" on gun forums (and elsewhere) who fit someone's definition of an extremist stereotype. What does that have to do with the vast majority who do not?

There are unstable, or unintelligent people who write, vote, act, drive, etc. We can all agree that not everyone in society equally possesses intelligence, reading comprehension or social skills.

imported post

Why wade into an OPEN CARRYforum in a condescending, confrontational manner, condeming all who don't think like you do?Seems like there would be better ways of spending your time.

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290:

I open carry everywhere. And I couldn't care less if you don't like it.

imported post

Evil Ernie wrote:

That stupid video...I wish someone would destroy that worthless piece of crap once and for all.

....

But we've debunked this video countless times already, nuff said.

Click to expand...

Exactly. If this video were true, I'd have broken my Serpa forever ago, when I had my buddy Shayne LIFT MY 230-POUND ASS OFF THE GROUND by the grip of my 1911.

The retention held just fine, and the holster didn't break. :celebrate

imported post

What I'm seeing in here incessantly are hostile, aggressive types who delight in strapping on their firearm and getting flagrant about engaging in confrontations about their putative RKBA.

Statute may allow for openly carrying a firearm. Nonetheless, there is a litany of well established statutory constraint concomitant to "peace, order, security, and the general welfare." These statutes can and will be exercised with regard to one who might opt to openly carry a firearm in public.

Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, cites numerous precedents wherein RKBA is mollified by civil propriety and the social welfare.

It doesn't take much, if you're in possession of a firearm, to step over the line of propriety and into the breech of disorderly conduct. Possession of the firearm in and of itself is prima faciae.

What I read in here repeatedly is statements to the effect: "There's no law against it." or "Open carry is legal."

Yeah, well . . . it's entirely legal to be falling down drunk. But it's not legal to be falling down drunk in a public venue where you compromise the peace, order, security, and general welfare of the public. The same applies to possession of a firearm. Only with a firearm, law enforcement views you as a potentially lethal threat.

My "agenda" in coming here was to discuss the implications of Heller. But I don't think anyone in here has read Heller.

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

...

My "agenda" in coming here was to discuss the implications of Heller. But I don't think anyone in here has read Heller.

Click to expand...

So do that and stop bothering those that OC. I'd be happy to discuss Heller implications with you on a separate thread.

BTW - here in PA there is no disturbing the peace law and there is clear case law that merely open carrying a firearm does not meet the statutory thresh hold of disorderly conduct.....

imported post

It is true that if you create a danger to the public you can be arrested and charged. But to say or imply that simply having an openly carried firearm creates a danger to the public will not fly, not in my state. As long as the carrier is not acting in an aggressive or threatening manner he has not endangered the public according to the law. You can't even be cited for disorderly conduct in my state if the only thing you are doing is open carrying. It's the law as it is written and as the courts have read it.

If you wanted to debate the Heller case you should have started a thread about it instead of jumping into existing ones arguing about the case to people who have no idea what point you are trying to make. No I haven't read the decision. I've read a few briefs and a small bite of the whole thing. From what I've read it basically says that they can't ban personal firearms but that the 2nd amendment is still subject to reasonable restrictions.

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

What I'm seeing in here incessantly are hostile, aggressive types who delight in strapping on their firearm and getting flagrant about engaging in confrontations about their putative RKBA.

Click to expand...

He must be talking about here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmZic2VFGyI
(VCDL Picnic)
Look how reckless those people are, at their picnic and all!

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

Statute may allow for openly carrying a firearm. Nonetheless, there is a litany of well established statutory constraint concomitant to "peace, order, security, and the general welfare." These statutes can and will be exercised with regard to one who might opt to openly carry a firearm in public.

Click to expand...

Hey, I read that book, too! It was a little dry, and the plot didn't make a lot of sense.




SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

It doesn't take much, if you're in possession of a firearm, to step over the line of propriety and into the breech of disorderly conduct. Possession of the firearm in and of itself is prima faciae.

Click to expand...

So, people shouldn't carry a gun at all? That's all I can get out of that statement.

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

What I read in here repeatedly is statements to the effect: "There's no law against it." or "Open carry is legal."

Click to expand...

Yep! In fact, you'll see if so often, we won't have time to go onto other people's boards (property), and tell them what they should and shouldn't do.



SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

Yeah, well . . . it's entirely legal to be falling down drunk. But it's not legal to be falling down drunk in a public venue where you compromise the peace, order, security, and general welfare of the public.  The same applies to possession of a firearm. Only with a firearm, law enforcement views you as a potentially lethal threat.

Click to expand...

So... people should be falling-down drunk while CC? Or is this just a red herring?



SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

My "agenda" in coming here was to discuss the implications of Heller. But I don't think anyone in here has read Heller.

Click to expand...

Coulda fooled me. :uhoh:

In fact, if anything, I'd venture to guess you came here with an agenda, based on your OP, which was also your first.

So yeah, have fun. You're welcome to stay, provided you stop being hostile and aggressive towards those of us that either can't afford a CHP, don't have the time during business hours to do so, or simply don't want to go through with the hassle of getting one.

Oh, and those of us that don't want our name in the paper.

-Evil Fuzzy Man

imported post

LOL AbNo!

Scotus, I concur with certain others in the thread. If you want to discuss Heller, start a thread to discuss Heller. Many of us here have read the original decision, the appellate decision, the SCOTUS appeal, many of the amicus briefs and the final SCOTUS decision along with lots of commentary about the matter at various points as this has wound its way through the court system. Lot of savvy, intelligent, literate members here who would be happy to have a discussion in a thread so focused.