Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: OC a rifle?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    I was wondering about the legality of open carrying a rifle, me and a few friends were thinking about trying it sometime, we are all under 21, but we arent a bunch of "punks", we dress casual but not sloppy.
    I have heard you can OC a rifle as long as its on your back with a sling or something like that? ive tried to find a topic regarding the issue but to prevail.

    I want to OC my ak-47 made by Arsenal. Its pretty mean looking, so im not sure how well an OC with it would go.

  2. #2
    Regular Member brokenbarrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    blowing dust, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    day before yesterday i seen a guy OC a pistol grip shotgun while ridding his motorcycle between casa grande and eloy,not a big deal-i will say this alot more people OC now i see at least one a day.One prob is that they think they can OC in establishments that serve alchol as long as they have a ccw..I work at one and tell them I have a ccw and my boss says if people keep this up hes just gonna have to put up an anti-rights sign...So please people do things right and dont kill it for everyone!!!I handle the OCers trying to keep my boss at bay but its gettin harder and harder,cuz people dont understand the law..

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    Yeah i know what you mean, the other day i saw an oc'er walk into a post office with one of those FEG PA-63's on his hip in plain view, i was going to say something but he did not look like a happy camper. People that dont know the law should not carry, and perhaps even own a gun in the first place.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    >meso.40< wrote:
    SNIP I was wondering about the legality of open carrying a rifle,
    From the forum rules:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html

    11) This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. Do not start OFF TOPIC threads or discussions such aspromoting the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the folks on this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry. (emphasis in the original)

    I'm not criticizing. Trying to keep you from getting a thread locked. This is a touchy subject in that it has comeup several times in the past and some of the posters were tactless enough to argue with the forum owners. The forum owners finally made the rule quoted above.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    oh my bad, i didnt even bother to read that. I guess the admin can delete this if he wants then.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    I agree, leave the rifles at homeand only carry properly holstered pistols/revolvers as apart of your daily life.Don't misunderstand, Iappreciate allfirearms and the need to be able to own and use them responsibly, butrifles are for hunting and practice shooting,not for everyday carry/defense of you, your loved ones, or innocents.

    Remember, carry responsibly or don't carry.

  7. #7
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    >meso.40< wrote:
    People that dont know the law should not carry, and perhaps even own a gun in the first place.
    That's an interesting statement.

    I doubt that anyone on this forum would agree with it.

    E95 over in the Alabama subforum certainly would not. He'd say it would be a restriction. And restrictions are .... bad.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    But, if you do not know the laws, technically you are not a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, if i were to walk outside with a pistol in each hand, fingers on the triggers, and just walking around, i would go to jail, and possibly get shot. Thats why it is important to know the laws, they are easily accessible so there is no reason NOT to know them

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    >meso.40< wrote:
    But, if you do not know the laws, technically you are not a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, if i were to walk outside with a pistol in each hand, fingers on the triggers, and just walking around, i would go to jail, and possibly get shot. Thats why it is important to know the laws, they are easily accessible so there is no reason NOT to know them
    There is no requirement in the Constitution that a gun carrier be "RESPONSIBLE!"

    I know it makes perfect sense that a gun carrier be responsible.

    But folks here would definitely disagree with you that someone who might be IRRESPONSIBLE with a gun at some point in the futureshould be restricted from their right to carry today.

    Heck, there was a guy who posted here a few months back who wanted to carry, get this--18 GLOCKS.

    At one time.

    G21 and G30 models is what he figured would work. No one told him that he couldn't (or even shouldn't) do it. That would be a restriction. And, like E95 over in the Alabama subforum opines, restrictions are bad.

    And knowing laws is not...well, it's really not all that necessary. Have you not ever heard the saying?:

    I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    Well irresponsible gun owners, such as that moron who let off a round in wal mart a few weeks back, should NOT have a gun. That is how people get killed. By morons with guns, before you get a gun, and especially when you plan to carry in public where more than one life is at risk, you need to know the laws, and how to be RESPONSIBLE.

    Im all for the constitution, but there are ways to go about supporting it.
    If im exercising my freedom of speech, but it is hate speech, then so be it, it is my right. but if i exercise my right to bear arms, and im a total dumbass, people could lose their lives, and make RESPONSIBLE gun owners, and open carry'ers look bad, thus leading to potential law changes that could affect our freedoms, freedoms such as the being able to conceal a handgun with no permit, (as long as you are 21+ and can legally own a firearm, of course). Those kind of people could rip that freedom away from us.

    Words may hurt, but bullets can and will kill, that is the point i am trying to get across. To own a firearm takes great responsibility.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Heck, there was a guy who posted here a few months back who wanted to carry, get this--18 GLOCKS.
    I seriously doubt the guy had a g18, much less TWO g18s, they are rare, and full auto, he most likely was saying it for attention.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Prescott Valley, AZ
    Posts
    200

    Post imported post

    Actually, I think it was 18 individual different Glocks -- not G18's.

    YMMV.

    As to the other -- to own a firearm may take great responsibility, but under our Constitution responsibility is not required. Sure, it can be a problem -- but a step down the road to require only "responsible" people have firearms, is a step down to surrendering our right to defend ourselves.

    No thanks. I get as aggravated as anyone with the idiocy of irresponsible gun owners -- but there you go. It's part of the price of our freedom to carry.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    179

    Post imported post

    You have a good point there.

    But nothing pisses me off more than stupid people with guns.
    I have almost been shot twice, both times from people i know.
    Neither of them had "responsible" in their vocabulary.

    But i do support the constitution. 100%.
    and what you have said makes perfect sense, and i guess thats why the laws regarding prohibited possessors is in effect.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's something people need to think about.

    The Second Amendment doesn't prohibit states from doing anything. Luckily the AZ constitution also protects our rights.

  15. #15
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    >meso.40< wrote:
    You have a good point there.

    But nothing pisses me off more than stupid people with guns.
    I have almost been shot twice, both times from people i know.
    Neither of them had "responsible" in their vocabulary.

    But i do support the constitution. 100%.
    and what you have said makes perfect sense, and i guess thats why the laws regarding prohibited possessors is in effect.
    I think you're doing well on this point, an important one.

    It is possible (and highly advisable) to legitimately criticize, even despise, "stupid people with guns" AND to simultaneously support the Constitution 100%.

    "Stupid people with guns" hurt my gun ownership and carry rights. Yours too.

    The SPWGs do more damage than they're worth...even if they don't get locked up.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    >meso.40< wrote:
    But, if you do not know the laws, technically you are not a RESPONSIBLE gun owner
    Well, i guess im not a resbonsible gun owner in your eyes, im sorry, BUT ill be dammed if you think you are a responsible gun owner. I dont have 100,000 gun laws memorized, i'd bet my bippy that you dont either. Shall we all throw our arms into a furnace to melt em down for the sake of those select few that have every gun law memorized?

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    >meso.40< wrote:
    But, if you do not know the laws, technically you are not a RESPONSIBLE gun owner,
    It is in one's best self interest to know what is likely to get criminal or other sanctions imposed vs what is not likely to bring down the heavy hand of government.

    That said, coming onto a forum like this and ASKING for help in finding or understanding the laws--especially before going out and doing something that might questionable--seems a very responsible thing to do.

    Going a step further, if our nation's law makers had greater respect for our federal and States' constitutions, one wouldn't need to do a bunch of research to know what is or is not legal. If we had fewer Malum prohibitum laws, and relied more on malum en se, we would be able to obey the laws simply by following a little common sense, common decency/courtesy, and basic safety rules.

    Carrying a gun or operating a car while drunk is dangerous and so is rightly illegal. Carrying a gun while merely eating dinner in a place that serves alcohol is not a danger and should not be illegal. Carrying a gun openly or concealed, or closer than 1000' feet to a school is not dangerous and should not be illegal. And so on and so forth.

    All decent men are born with enough of a conscious that with a little bit a basic unbringing know right from wrong. It is a shame, however, that we then have to spend countless hours trying to learn what bizarre restrictions above and beyond basic right and wrong have been placed on the peaceful exercise of our rights.

    Charles


    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    Well said Charles, well said. I cant remember every gun law out there, but i can remember right from wrong.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    661

    Post imported post

    DustoneGT wrote:
    I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's something people need to think about.

    The Second Amendment doesn't prohibit states from doing anything. Luckily the AZ constitution also protects our rights.
    What you opine here is not 100% correct. The SCOTUS is getting ready to rule on McDonald v Chicago which asks the question: Is the 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states?

    Since the Supreme Court accepted the case, your assertion that the 2nd doesn't prohibit the states from doing anything is questionable.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    >meso.40< wrote:
    Yeah i know what you mean, the other day i saw an oc'er walk into a post office with one of those FEG PA-63's on his hip in plain view, i was going to say something but he did not look like a happy camper. People that dont know the law should not carry, and perhaps even own a gun in the first place.
    I see this stated so many times and it makes me gag.

    Most people can't know the law. It is inaccessible to them by sheer volume. The law is also illegitimate. Yes, laws have been made with outrageous restrictions. They exist. But they are treason.

    I hope people like that don't get caught, but I also hope they never stop. They're either brave, or stupid. Or are we all just cowards hiding behind the excuse that 'we know the law' and obey it even when we know it's sick and evil?

    Being a 'law abiding citizen' is nothing to crow about. The Law is no longer a noble or even marginally decent thing.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  21. #21
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    Being a 'law abiding citizen' is nothing to crow about. The Law is no longer a noble or even marginally decent thing.
    You sound kind of absolutist, ix.

    Do you follow any laws?Some? A few?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    ixtow wrote:
    Being a 'law abiding citizen' is nothing to crow about. The Law is no longer a noble or even marginally decent thing.
    You sound kind of absolutist, ix.

    Do you follow any laws?Some? A few?
    I gotta say i agree with ixtow on this. Once upon a time, it was "honorable" to call yourself a "law abiding citizen", nowadays its more like "ehh, he fallows the rules... whatever". I don't agree with many, many laws. However, every law that i am aware of is a law that i try to abide by... not a little bit, not sometimes, all the time. Not because it makes me look good or because i agree with the law, i do it because it IS the law. Just because something is law, doesn't make it noble or decent. just my $0.02

  23. #23
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    mrh2008 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    ixtow wrote:
    Being a 'law abiding citizen' is nothing to crow about. The Law is no longer a noble or even marginally decent thing.
    You sound kind of absolutist, ix.

    Do you follow any laws?Some? A few?
    I gotta say i agree with ixtow on this. Once upon a time, it was "honorable" to call yourself a "law abiding citizen", nowadays its more like "ehh, he fallows the rules... whatever". I don't agree with many, many laws. However, every law that i am aware of is a law that i try to abide by... not a little bit, not sometimes, all the time. Not because it makes me look good or because i agree with the law, i do it because it IS the law. Just because something is law, doesn't make it noble or decent. just my $0.02
    You don't sound absolutist at all mrh. Nowhere near ix, anyway.

    Are there any laws you do not follow because you disagree with them?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:

    You don't sound absolutist at all mrh. Nowhere near ix, anyway.

    Are there any laws you do not follow because you disagree with them?
    I admit, i have and do break some laws on occasion... i'd say nearly 100% of them are traffic laws, about five min ago i parked in a fire lane by a dumpsterin my apartment complex to clean the trash out of my car, and sometimes i catch myself over the speed limit or make wide right/left turns, I also have my high school graduation tassel hanging from my rear view mirror.so the answer to your question is "yes, there are laws that i do not fallow 100% of the time because i dont agree with them in all instances." are there laws that you do not fallow? Everyone breaks the laws sometimes, after all that is what they are made for. The govt WANTS us to break laws, they want our money.

  25. #25
    Regular Member brokenbarrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    blowing dust, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    Simply put ignorance of the law is no excuse,if you dont have a drivers license and run a red light now your in trouble for no license and runnning the red light.If you go to court and say your honor I didnt know the law he dosent say oh ok,if thats the case your dismissed...





    Now im sorry i expressed my frustration on this thread,like it or not if a law is broken it'll get ya in trouble,mystatement had to do with people who brake laws that affect me..

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
  •