The Open Carry Argument

imported post

You are correct, but let's use DC as an example.Mr. Heller had a right to bear arms under the Constitution, but the DC government told him that hecould not. That's what the ruling was all about. One guy, in his home,wanting to protect his family,in one city.

Now, EVERYBODY looked at this ruling as an interpretation of the Second Amendment, the question always beingwhether you had to be in come type of militia to bear arms, or you had a 'personal' right to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled that all of us have a personal right to bear arms, based on Heller's win. However, they left intact a state's ability to restrict that right beyond your front door.

Therefore, everyone in DC can now own a gun and keep it loaded in there own home, but nowhere in thisruling do they overide a state's ability to restrict OC or CC. These have been and will always be a priviledge granted by each state.

Fortunately, more than most states allow OC and CCand will continue to do so regardless of the courts ruling. Those states, and DC, who want to restrict will also continue to do so, and I guarantee you that you will not be able to OC inDC until somebody in the government over there get a clue.

It's possible this ruling will carry over to OC and CC, but IMHO I seriously doubt it. I hope it does, however.

imported post

concealed wrote:

Let me explain. My personal belief is that people who OC intimidate others without knowing they are doing it. I'm not saying they go into a store and wave their guns around, that would truly be illegal. Just as illegal as someone who CC's and waves their gun around to intimidate people.

You've heard the saying "He has a chip on his shoulder." Well, obviously, this is not a real "chip," but an attitude that other's pick up on.

Having a gun on your hip is also an attitude other's pick up on. We are trying to win over the gun haters, not gun lovers.

I certainly understand why someone who OC's feels safer, and after being on this board I can even see where OC in your own home isn't a bad idea, but in public we all have to be ambassadors for the Second Amendment, and I think we have to be very careful when we are in public with our guns. If we rub people's noses in it we aren't going to win any friends.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about the above for a few days. I agree with it to a point. I do think that some people while OC have a carriage that, in conjunction with a sidearm could be seen as intimidating. However, I do not think that is universally true and I think it is usually unintentional.

When I first open carried as an adult (I had OC'd in rural KY while hunting and hiking as a teen) a little over a year ago, everyone seemed to notice that I was carrying. I thought that was just them. Several people commented to me about it being intimidating. I thought it was just them.

Flash forward to now. I have about 18 months of daily carry, usually CC, but OC when I can legally, under my belt. I don't even think about it anymore. I get ready in the morning and my watch, pocket knife, wallet, keys, cell phone and pistol all go on my person, belt or in my pocket. It isn't a big deal, it is just part of my life. The less of a novelty and big deal it has become to me, the less I find that other people comment about it whether people I see regularly, people I see infrequently or strangers. My casualness about carrying (not to be equated with lack of situational awareness) seems to carry over to other people being less tense about it.

It wasn't "just them" all along. It was just me. When it was new to me, when it was novel and I was still self-conscious about it, I must have been projecting that self-consciousness, that tension. Now that it is not a big deal to me, other people seem to sense that I am casual but confident about it and are less likely to react to it or challenge me past an initial :shock:. Perhaps I am shirking my educational duties, and I do educate when it is natural for the circumstances, but I just don't make a big deal out of it either way.

I think it is like many other things. If something looks odd or out of place people notice. If it looks normal and right their mental filters pass over it. I think the individual's bearing, demeanor and carriage effect this more than how the sidearm is carried.

imported post

The Supreme Court decision is nice and all, but no court decides what my rights are. My rights exist because I say they do, and because exercising them does no harm to others. They are functions of my existence as a human, thus we say they were "endowed by our creator", and I don't need a statist ass like Antonin Scalia to tell me what my rights are, or that some city bureaucratic ass can restrict them.

What Scalia, Roberts, et al did the other day was to almost do their jobs: to protect my rights what like I pay them taxes for. The four dissenters failed to do their jobs at all.

You have a right to bear arms in DC, to own assault rifles in DC, to OC in DC, and to do it wothout explaining yourself to some costumed tax parasite, no matter what the USSC rules. It's a sad fact that those rights are not respected and are infringed with prejudice, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist.

OC'ing is just one of many ways to remind people of that fact.

imported post

Good luck with that OCing thing in DC. Let me know how it works out for you. Do they have the internet in Prison?

imported post

Unclebuck wrote:

Good luck with that OCing thing in DC. Let me know how it works out for you. Do they have the internet in Prison?

Click to expand...

Who's trying to OC in DC?

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

The Supreme Court decision is nice and all, but no court decides what my rights are. My rights exist because I say they do, and because exercising them does no harm to others. They are functions of my existence as a human, thus we say they were "endowed by our creator", and I don't need a statist ass like Antonin Scalia to tell me what my rights are, or that some city bureaucratic ass can restrict them.

What Scalia, Roberts, et al did the other day was to almost do their jobs: to protect my rights what like I pay them taxes for. The four dissenters failed to do their jobs at all.

You have a right to bear arms in DC, to own assault rifles in DC, to OC in DC, and to do it wothout explaining yourself to some costumed tax parasite, no matter what the USSC rules. It's a sad fact that those rights are not respected and are infringed with prejudice, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist.

OC'ing is just one of many ways to remind people of that fact.

Click to expand...

Unclebuck wrote:

Good luck with that OCing thing in DC. Let me know how it works out for you. Do they have the internet in Prison?

Click to expand...

Tomahawk just said you have the right to, not that he was going to do it. He points out that those rights are not respected and are being infringed upon, which I agree is total crap.

...Happy I live in Oregon - They don't muck with my rights TOO much...
...Orygunner...

imported post

In an attempt to get this back on track, there’s some interesting reading here about the five stages of an attack which certainly seems to validate open carry as a deterrent.

The quote at the top is worth re-posting:

There is a big difference between self-defense
and personal safety. Self defense is predicated
on the fact that you are in a very bad place
to begin with. Things have already gone to
hell in a hand basket. As such, self defenses
is making sure the situation doesn't
get any worse -- it is damage control,
pure and simple. However, no damage control
is EVER as good as preventing the problem
in the first place. That's personal safety...
Marc MacYoung

Click to expand...

imported post

Eventually we will have to "put up or shut up". The people have allowed governmental officials, and agencies to usurp power for 227 years. Not just in D.C. but in every jurisdiction in this country "law" is being literally "made-up" by prosecutors and judges in order to fill "loop- holes" in the written statutory LAW. To further aggravate this travesty "defense attorneys" (also designated "officers of the court") play along with this make believe "law" - because they know where their cash flow comes from. The defense attorney represents the (persecuted) client before the court...."succeeds" in having the charge of a "crime" either dismissed , or the client "pleads guilty" to a "misdemeanor"- even though the statutes never established a "misdemeanor offense" for the"crime". The habitual criminals know how the "system" works - so they just plead "not guilty" and wait out the 6 month's "torture" of court hearings - until the proccess has sufferred them long enough. Then lo and behold - the charges are "dismissed". Why ? - because it costs too much money to take to trial . Sorry - I'm ranting, I know. Problem is I just got off the phone with an investigator in the D.A.'s office who just gave me the "company line" on Colorado's " felon in possession of a firearm" law (CRS 18-12-108). I'm not a lawyer (thank God) - but I have an education, and I "think" I can decipher the English language pretty fluently. Colorado statute defines "the crime of possession of a firearm by a previous offender" AS - "a class 5 or 6 felony" (depending on circumstances) within a 10 year time period following convictionor completion of sentence including supervised parole. No other stipulation exists in the statute establishing "a crime" for possession of a firearm outside of that 10 year period.The 10th Circuit US Appeals Court in 1996 & 1997 interpreted Colorado's statute as "automatically" restoring all civil rights including firearms possession after the 10 year period. Inspiteof what my research has revealed- local DA's office, and even defense attorney's maintain a felon can never possess a firearm the rest of their life in Colorado. If a person outside the 10 year parameter is found to be in possession - I am informed - they will be arrested (gun confiscated, ofcourse) and "prosecuted" (actually read: persecuted ). An afirmative defense to prosecution is acting in defense of home, person, or property.I'm hoping the Heller "opinion" will eventually help end this long-suffering nightmare of judicial/prosecutorial tyranny. I rant again. I'm NOT the "prior offender" , but I know several - and they are productive, law-abiding citizens- who in most cases would not have been convicted if they could have afforded a decent attorney.Any one want to weigh in on this ?

imported post

My take is that SCOTUS just wanted to address the issue at hand. Since Heller was suing to have a gun in his home, that was what they allowed and all they allowed. The decision plainly stated that since Heller said he had no problem with registration, that they would allow it and gave D.C. 21 days to issue him a permit as long as he otherwise qualified.

They mentioned some cases about open carry that was decided in the past thathad been decidedto our advantage, but stopped short of saying it was also a right. It looked to me as if they were saying "Bringus a case about open carry from the states", but didn't want to come right out and say it.

It was a very narrow decision which is, as I understand it, the way Chief Justice Roberts likes it.

imported post

Unclebuck wrote:

Good luck with that OCing thing in DC. Let me know how it works out for you. Do they have the internet in Prison?

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court decision also left open the right for Unclebuck to own and use a special type of gun: one with a U-shaped barrel.

imported post

Why open carry? There are those that say "weapons have no place in a civilized society's". But a "civilized society" is an imposable goal. Proof is we'll always have crime which has no place in civilized society's. Or a government,regardless who they are or what form it's in, to try and subjugate it's citizens. I believe any time a politician uses this argument it has nothing to do with "public safety". When you open carry you are putting all your cards on the table, not hiding your intentions from anyone. In fact your making the statementyour the master of your own self. Which I believe is what annoyssome LEOs and otherauthority types. There is also the belief that government (LEOs) are there to protect you. A false belief. That is not there job only assumed because that is what is always said. There is no way they will be there when you need them. Nothing against them, they can't be everywhere at once. It is your duty to defend yourself, no others. I have had family members murdered. Where was there protection? They failed there self. It was not the law or LEOs. They failed to protect themselves. That simple. Sure the lawwas there on paper butpaper don't stop bullets or knives in there case. Civilised society's? lawsimply"civilized society's" but does not make them.The only thing that does is civil people. So does carrying a weopon make you uncivil? No! But can make others civil toward you. But can also make you a target for uncivil action. But I'd wrather take my chances armed. Laws are for the lawless not for people that are civilized andrespect other people.

imported post

murphy2 wrote:

Why open carry? ... When you open carry you are putting all your cards on the table, not hiding your intentions from anyone. ...

Click to expand...

Exactly, and If the game is Violence, then I want everyone to know that I'm holding pocket Aces and they'd most likely lose and lose big. Therefore, they fold, and no one gets hurt.

Thats the problem I have with concealed carry. CC advocates argue you loose your tacticool advantage of surprise, but, not only do you yourself not have that advantage in the first place, carrying for tactical advantage on someone else is almost like inviting the attack so you can do violence unto them. I argue that OC is the gentleman's carry; Not inviting violence but warning those who would start it that they play a deadly, risky game so that they might silently conceed and move on.

imported post

Dopavash, I agree!

imported post

DopaVash, I agree also. And want to add that most criminals are cowards, and are attempting to prey on the weakto start with, so when they see someone that shows some strength, they won't confront. So open carry makes tons of sense.

imported post

I would only add that both types of carry have their advantages and their disadvantages. Arguing one against the other is like arguing 9mil vs .45, and you will never convince either side of what is better. So I believe it is best to state your peace and drive on. Carry how you are comfortable and be done with it. They are carrying, so are you. Both are protected. Both are proactive.

Me? I carry both depending on where I am going, or what I am doing. Not because I feel one is better than the other, and not because I am affraid of being harrassed by someone or another. But because one type of carry will suit better for a given situation.

imported post

Therefore, everyone in DC can now own a gun and keep it loaded in there own home, but nowhere in this ruling do they overide a state's ability to restrict OC or CC. These have been and will always be a priviledge granted by each state.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS had to limit their ruling to the case before them, or they risk violating the 3 powers restrictions (if only the Federal courts would respect that). Heller was about home protection, and (unfortunately) Heller even agreed to registration as long as he could protect his home. The biggest win on Heller is the recognition that 2A does recognize an individual right. If you've read the anti web sites, prior to Heller all of them espoused the militia clause and poo poo'd the "the right" clause.

Unfortunately the CC/OC issue is a catch 22 in DC and elsewhere. People that want to CC/OC are the ones that respect the law. However, in order to get the DC laws changed someone has to break them and go through the years of appeals and then maybe, with luck, reach the Supreme Court. The other avenue is for a group of people to defy the law in the manner of Ghandi and Martin Luther King...but unlike the civil rights movement people are fearful of "mobs with guns", and conveying to the populous that your demonstration is peaceful while displaying sidearms is difficult.

imported post

Dom wrote:

Therefore, everyone in DC can now own a gun and keep it loaded in there own home, but nowhere in this ruling do they overide a state's ability to restrict OC or CC. These have been and will always be a priviledge granted by each state.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS had to limit their ruling to the case before them, or they risk violating the 3 powers restrictions (if only the Federal courts would respect that). Heller was about home protection, and (unfortunately) Heller even agreed to registration as long as he could protect his home. The biggest win on Heller is the recognition that 2A does recognize an individual right. If you've read the anti web sites, prior to Heller all of them espoused the militia clause and poo poo'd the "the right" clause.

Unfortunately the CC/OC issue is a catch 22 in DC and elsewhere. People that want to CC/OC are the ones that respect the law. However, in order to get the DC laws changed someone has to break them and go through the years of appeals and then maybe, with luck, reach the Supreme Court. The other avenue is for a group of people to defy the law in the manner of Ghandi and Martin Luther King...but unlike the civil rights movement people are fearful of "mobs with guns", and conveying to the populous that your demonstration is peaceful while displaying sidearms is difficult.

Click to expand...

The thing they do not realize the "mobs" they should fear will always have guns regardless of what the law says. Even if SCOTUS ruled the other way. The punks and criminal would not just turn in there guns. I wouldn't either. So I geuss i'd have been made a criminal.

imported post

Unclebuck wrote:

Vegassteve wrote:

Unclebuck wrote:

tito887 wrote:

I would remind you that the right to bear arms explicitly means wearing the firearm out in the open. That has historically always been the right.

Click to expand...

Can you show me that in the 2nd Amendment? I can not find where is states you have the right to walk around in public with a glock strapped to the outside of your clothes.

My point being is I am for the right to bear arms, but I also do not want to rub it in people's faces. No harm in flying under the rader.

Click to expand...

Can you show me in the first amendment where it states you can run around on the Internet and type your dribble? By you typing here and speaking in public you are rubbing the right to free speech in others faces.



Maybe you should keep to yourself.No harm in flying under the radar(correct spelling). Maybe you fly under a rader( your spelling)whatever that is.

Click to expand...

Forum: an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.




Glad to see you are open minded. You really got me with the spell check. ZING.

Maybe you should take a nap in your garage with the car running??

Click to expand...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Bear - to carry.

Carry - to wear.

Wear - to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like.

www.dictionary.com

imported post

This DVD Will Change Your Life

imported post

NaT805

Click to expand...

Hey Nat, What's up with your Avatar Flag ?

What does that stand for ?