• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

OC a rifle?

*1911_man*

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
216
Location
, ,
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.
 

brokenbarrel

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
206
Location
blowing dust, Arizona, USA
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..:banghead:
 

*1911_man*

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
216
Location
, ,
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

*1911_man*

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
216
Location
, ,
imported post

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

matt35

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
24
Location
, ,
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

*1911_man*

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
216
Location
, ,
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
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

*1911_man*

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
216
Location
, ,
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.
 

*1911_man*

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
216
Location
, ,
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.
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
200
Location
Prescott Valley, AZ
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.
 

*1911_man*

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
216
Location
, ,
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.
 

DustoneGT

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
97
Location
, ,
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

mrh2008

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
96
Location
Mesa, Arizona, USA
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? :lol:
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

Dahwg

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
661
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
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.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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.
 
Top