Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: where oc is illegal, cc + political T-shirt?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    suppose you lived in a state where OC was illegal (like mine, texas) but did have the opportunity to legally CC. would you CC and wear a T-shirt that obviously announced, front and back, that you had a handgun? (stop me if this idea is illegal)
    for the nitpickers, suppose it simply said "I legally carry a concealed handgun." with a silhouette of a 1911 underneath.
    this should bring some of the deterrence value back of OC, although you still suffer from slow draw, etc. from CC.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    Interesting Idea. I started a thread some time ago about a "Law Abiding Citizen" Tshirt for wearing while OCing.

    How about these shirts? :



    My favorite is this one from TacticalResponse Gear:

    Available Here: http://www.tacticalresponsegear.com/...oducts_id=2714

    ...Orygunner...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    that's cool. knew someone else should've thought of it too.

  4. #4
    Lone Star Veteran Gator5713's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Aggieland, Texas, USA
    Posts
    593

    Post imported post

    OC a hammer!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    carpenters got the jump on us with that.

    although i doubt it, if the stolen gun argument is true, then you can put your gun in a different position and then shoot whoever fondles your belly. =)

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    texanego wrote:
    suppose you lived in a state where OC was illegal (like mine, texas) but did have the opportunity to legally CC. would you CC and wear a T-shirt that obviously announced, front and back, that you had a handgun? (stop me if this idea is illegal)
    for the nitpickers, suppose it simply said "I legally carry a concealed handgun." with a silhouette of a 1911 underneath.
    this should bring some of the deterrence value back of OC, although you still suffer from slow draw, etc. from CC.
    I'm pretty sure that wearing clothing that announces that you're carrying is illegal in Texas. Not a Lawyer.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    wonder if that's a free speech test case the aclu would want to pick up.
    *rolls eyes

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    Maybe this is pushing things a bit but in a way concealed-carry-only states are violating free speech because forcing you to hide your gun is limiting your expression.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    good point.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915

    Post imported post

    "..I'm pretty sure that wearing clothing that announces that you're carrying is illegal in Texas. Not a Lawyer..."
    Why do people post things with "I don't know but I'm pretty sure that ___________ is illegal..." I'm sorry for being brusque, but it adds nothing but noise to the discussion. If you have a cite then give us the citation, for Pete's sake, anything less is just typing to see your words on a screen.

    (There, I said it. Now I'm going to go have coffee and become a much more useful and polite member of this forum.)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    My recommendation is to carry an empty holster. That way if someone asks why it is empty you have an opportunity to educate them.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Maine, USA
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    Fallschirmjäger wrote:
    "..I'm pretty sure that wearing clothing that announces that you're carrying is illegal in Texas. Not a Lawyer..."
    Why do people post things with "I don't know but I'm pretty sure that ___________ is illegal..." I'm sorry for being brusque, but it adds nothing but noise to the discussion. If you have a cite then give us the citation, for Pete's sake, anything less is just typing to see your words on a screen.

    (There, I said it. Now I'm going to go have coffee and become a much more useful and polite member of this forum.)
    My question would then turn to who has a discussion without opinion? He isn't stating it as a legal fact but referencing it as what he thinks maybe true.

    Yes linking facts would be great and they add a lot of credibility to your posts. However at the same time his opinion may also give you a good idea on what the general reaction maybe fromgeneral public and local LEO's.

    Idk about the rest of you but i don't realy feel the need to be the deciding court case to clear up such grey areas, regardless of how the findings go. so with his thoughts in mind i may avoid a shirt like this baised on the idea that it maybe thought illegal by the police and thus result in alot of headach for me.


    P.S. I'm only posting this because I see posts like this on this forum alot and I'm not sure what use they have, as a forum is meant for discussion not as a refrence library.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Chapter 46, Title 10, Sec.46.035 UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a)A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

    GC 411.171
    (3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
    which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable
    person.

    These laws would seem to state that using any means to make a person aware of the fact that you have a firearm would violate the law.

    EDIT: Sorry, these are Texas laws. Not sure about other states.

    The tshirts would be awesome to wear anyhow, even if CC was not required... They are kinda cool, sort of like OC without actually seeing the firearm. Would definitely make someone think twice.


  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    protector84 wrote:
    Maybe this is pushing things a bit but in a way concealed-carry-only states are violating free speech because forcing you to hide your gun is limiting your expression.

    Do keep in mind that there is nothing enumerated in the Bill of Rights to guarantee freedom of expression. That is a perversion of the concept of interpretation which is an insidious extension of the earlier 20th century.

    If we, and we should, follow the dictates of the Original Intent, such a right would revert to the states and the people respectively.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Casper, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    185

    Post imported post

    Again with the T-shirts..... Sigh.....

    If you ever have to shoot someone in self-defense, do you want the jury to see a 5 foot x 5 foot blowup of a T-shirt you were wearing that basically says "I like to shoot people" while you're facing 20 years for murder in a righteous shoot?

    This could be true of any "gun art" shirt, but especially of that second one, the one with the parody of the Serenity Prayer.

    Does it occur to you that an ADA could spin that as premeditation, or at least that you were "looking for a fight"?


    MWD


    I-ANAL (I am not an lawyer.)

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    MichaelWDean wrote:
    Again with the T-shirts..... Sigh.....

    If you ever have to shoot someone in self-defense, do you want the jury to see a 5 foot x 5 foot blowup of a T-shirt you were wearing that basically says "I like to shoot people" while you're facing 20 years for murder in a righteous shoot?

    This could be true of any "gun art" shirt, but especially of that second one, the one with the parody of the Serenity Prayer.

    Does it occur to you that an ADA could spin that as premeditation, or at least that you were "looking for a fight"?


    MWD


    I-ANAL (I am not an lawyer.)
    I suspect that Virginia law is quite a bit different than California law in these regards. Here justifiable homocide is an affirmative defense.

    But I agree that T-shirt's spouting questionable, inflamatory, or provacative text and depictions is not advisable both from the defensive aspect AND the messaging one. We want to send out positive and mature messages to others who see us OC'ing, not ones which raise the ire of some people and may ultimately hurt our purpose.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Casper, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    185

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:

    I suspect that Virginia law is quite a bit different than California law in these regards. Here justifiable homocide is an affirmative defense.

    Yup.

    but I lived in both Arlington and Charlottesville, and had more hinky cop encounters than I have had living in Los Angeles for a longer period of time!

    MWD

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Roanoke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Discretion is an amazing tool, and should be used in all scenarios.

    Would that shirt be appropriate to wear to a barbeque with your close friends?
    -and/or-
    Would it be appropriate to wear to a children's soccer game? (with sheeple soccer moms to boot)

    -Disclaimer- Not intended to speak towards freedom of expression, rather discretionary choices in differing scenarios.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Do keep in mind that there is nothing enumerated in the Bill of Rights to guarantee freedom of expression. That is a perversion of the concept of interpretation which is an insidious extension of the earlier 20th century.

    If we, and we should, follow the dictates of the Original Intent, such a right would revert to the states and the people respectively.

    Wrong. The First Amendment states that the government shall not abridge the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, to peacably assemble, etc. Expression is a form of speech. Speech is not just the words that come out of your mouth. As they say, "a picture is a thousand words." Passing laws restricting people from wearing clothing with certain words, images, etc., is an infringement on speech. As to forcing you to hide a gun if carrying in public, it is limiting your expression which is in turn limiting your speech. Carrying a firearm openly is telling criminals and other problem people to leave you alone without actually uttering the words. The government loves to try to find loop-holes in the Constitution to limit rights. For instance, "we support the right to keep and bear arms" but then they require you to have background checks, obtain permits, over-tax weapons and ammo, tell you how you can and cannot carry, where you can and cannot carry, etc. That is not freedom. Same with the First Amendment. "We support the right to freedom of speech" but then if you support or oppose certain views, you will be put on watch lists by the government, hassled by police at public demonstrations, and then they try to require licenses to have public gatherings, limit what things you can say and where you can say them, etc. If you don't think the government does this, look at public schools where children are forced to wear the same clothes as all the other kids, cannot say anything "offensive" or not "politically correct" and at the same time parents are forced to make their children attend these prisons.

    You can dissect it however you want but the government continues to limit people's rights. The government needs to stay out of the private lives' of citizens. Whether I am inside my home or in a public place, as long as I am not clearly causing a disturbance to the peace, anything I do is not of the government's business whether it is packing a gun, wearing a political t-shirt, or smoking a joint. It isn't their business and it won't be their business because I won't take kindly to any government intrusion into my home should they have nothing better to do.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Casper, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    185

    Post imported post

    Right on!

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    protector84 wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Do keep in mind that there is nothing enumerated in the Bill of Rights to guarantee freedom of expression. That is a perversion of the concept of interpretation which is an insidious extension of the earlier 20th century.

    If we, and we should, follow the dictates of the Original Intent, such a right would revert to the states and the people respectively.

    Wrong. The First Amendment states that the government shall not abridge the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, to peacably assemble, etc. Expression is a form of speech. Speech is not just the words that come out of your mouth. As they say, "a picture is a thousand words." Passing laws restricting people from wearing clothing with certain words, images, etc., is an infringement on speech. As to forcing you to hide a gun if carrying in public, it is limiting your expression which is in turn limiting your speech. Carrying a firearm openly is telling criminals and other problem people to leave you alone without actually uttering the words. The government loves to try to find loop-holes in the Constitution to limit rights. For instance, "we support the right to keep and bear arms" but then they require you to have background checks, obtain permits, over-tax weapons and ammo, tell you how you can and cannot carry, where you can and cannot carry, etc. That is not freedom. Same with the First Amendment. "We support the right to freedom of speech" but then if you support or oppose certain views, you will be put on watch lists by the government, hassled by police at public demonstrations, and then they try to require licenses to have public gatherings, limit what things you can say and where you can say them, etc. If you don't think the government does this, look at public schools where children are forced to wear the same clothes as all the other kids, cannot say anything "offensive" or not "politically correct" and at the same time parents are forced to make their children attend these prisons.

    You can dissect it however you want but the government continues to limit people's rights. The government needs to stay out of the private lives' of citizens. Whether I am inside my home or in a public place, as long as I am not clearly causing a disturbance to the peace, anything I do is not of the government's business whether it is packing a gun, wearing a political t-shirt, or smoking a joint. It isn't their business and it won't be their business because I won't take kindly to any government intrusion into my home should they have nothing better to do.

    I do agree with much everything you have written except for the first part where you have suggested my stance regarding the First Amendment and the concept of "expression" was in error. With that one, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Casper, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    185

    Post imported post

    A thing to remember is that documents like the Constitution do not grant rights, they (supposedly) guarantee rights. The rights to free speech, self-defense; the right to freely assemble, worship as you please, not be tyrannized, etc, are innate. You were born with them, and no one has the right to take them away, if you live a right life (i.e. do not initiate aggression and keep your word.)

    I think this is very important to know, and very important to teach and pass on to others.

    If you are religious, rights are God-given. If you're agnostic or atheist, rights are just in you.

    Regardless, if you don't step on the toes of others, you retain all these rights, and anyone who takes them away is a tyrant.

    (True self-defense, against any entity, is not stepping on the toes of others. It's pushing their pushy toes away from your toes.)

    MWD


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    id do alot of research on this topic as declaring you are CC seems like its not CC anymore.

    it would get attention of people though.

  24. #24
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    MichaelWDean wrote:
    A thing to remember is that documents like the Constitution do not grant rights, they (supposedly) guarantee rights. The rights to free speech, self-defense; the right to freely assemble, worship as you please, not be tyrannized, etc, are innate. You were born with them, and no one has the right to take them away, if you live a right life (i.e. do not initiate aggression and keep your word.)

    I think this is very important to know, and very important to teach and pass on to others.

    If you are religious, rights are God-given. If you're agnostic or atheist, rights are just in you.

    Regardless, if you don't step on the toes of others, you retain all these rights, and anyone who takes them away is a tyrant.

    (True self-defense, against any entity, is not stepping on the toes of others. It's pushing their pushy toes away from your toes.)

    MWD
    Nearly correct. The Bill of Rights does not grant or "give" rights, it recognizes rights which are inherently ours and not subject to governmental intrusion or infringement. In other words, the Bill of Rights limits the powers of government by protecting our rights, but it also does more. It specifically states that those "...powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (Tenth Amendment) and "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (Ninth Amendment).

    The concept of expression does not appear in the First Amendment and for good reason. It is only through interpretation that it has been ncluded in this amendment. But I'd rather trust in our Founders as having written precisely what they did for perfect reason. Had they wanted the phrase "freedom of expression" to appear in the First Amendment, you can bet it would be there for all to see. But it' not so freedom of expression must fall under the purview of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. In other words, it would be left unto the states and the people to decide how they might wish to handle this.

    Maybe Ohio might like Maplethorp's "artistic" displays of female genitalia on dinner plates as freedom of [artistic??] expression, but perhaps Kentucky may find this to be not to their liking. Enter the last two Amendments in the Bill of Rights. When in doubt, trust the Founders.



    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Waterford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Great Idea! I would rather open carry anytime to let everyone know I did indeed havemy self defense weapon at the ready. Second best would be advertising that I have aCPL and I amand will carry everywhere I am allowed.

    chazzman5369

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •