More anti-OC flak

mudvr1212 said:

Oh wow look at ALL the women and children running. Obama didn't even run from this protest, but let me guess...this man shouldn't have carried it there because the President could have been SCARED!!!

Click to expand...

How do we get people used to OCing without OCing?How would exposing illegal acts of local governments in the media be bad?When does educating local governments of the laws we live by become bad?Who do they work for anyway?

...

I mean, there are MANY children at Cabela's, Meijer and other stores that the OCer frequents, but the "2A supporters" over at Bredas and other blog sites don't seem to think it's a bad idea to carry there. Wait, those aren't places where children go to learn! That's right!

Typically when you support something, you support that in any way, shape or form. Not just this way or that way. It's all or nothing or you're just one of the others...:banghead:

And please, if you're not from the state in question, the least you can do is take 20 minutes and read some of our laws to be abreast and then make your comments on legality.



If you're reading this Breda, most in the OC community do NOT support the openly carrying of a handgun in the 5, 6 or 7 o'clock position. How exactly are you going to have any form of awareness carrying like that...:banghead:

UtahJarhead said:

Do you guys HONESTLY think it's a good idea to carry shotties into a controversial location in the HOPES to make a scene?

Click to expand...

I agree! Since a lot of people think concealed carry or open carry is controversial in many locations, you will leave your gun at home, correct? Don't want to make a scene, right?

Oh, and since a lot of people think owning guns is controversial, you shouldn't be controversial or make a scene by owning one. Please go to your nearest PD and turn it in for destruction.

Oh, what's that? You didn't mean *your* guns or *your* carry seemed controversial to you or "causes a scene" with a lot of people? Well it is to a lot of people. So, why are you exempt?

hamaneggs said:

This goes to show it's not about the D's & R's,although the D's have a long way to go to be in line with our federal and MI constitutions.It's about the citizens taking the responsibility to defend themselves and their fellow citizens by the only means available against armed enemy's,foreign and domestic(all criminals)! It's awfully nice to see a pro-2A D though!

Click to expand...

Ham, there are as many pro 2A dems as there are antis. Same with republicans. Its the person, not the party.

That being said, and the rest of this post is for the thread, not you Ham, it's all <3 bro

I think this was a dumb, bone headed move, if and only if EDIT: BOTH of the following things are true.

1. If they OC'd a shotgun into a library just to prove a point, that's ridiculous.

2. If in proving said point they sit in a children's section, and spooked a bunch of kids, then that's fatal.

Remember the anti war cry? THINK OF THE CHILDRENSZZ!!1ONE!1!!11!ONE321!!

I carry to defend myself, not to push a political agenda, and not to prove a point.

I argue for the rights of long gunners on here constantly, I take the stance that if it's legal, it's legal, can't have it both ways, but to prove some dumb as point, and scare a bunch of kids was just hitting a hornet's nest, and we will be paying for it in the end. Forget about HB 4009 or SB 59. This kind of ********, at this critical time may have killed it.

We could have just sat tight, let the stuff land where it does, and see what we get. Nope, someone has to prove a point, and carried a shotgun in a library. An adult in a teen section, with a shotgun? I would have thought, wtf pedo, where is Chris when I need him to expose you, and GTFO of here around my kids. Damn the gun, it was creepy to hang in the kids section, worse to do it a shotgun.

You know what? The world we live in sucks and lots of people are anti-gun... but the simple fact of the matter is the act of carrying the shotguns into the library is what CAUSED the representative to add libraries to the list of victim disarmament zones. If they hadn't tried to stick out like a sore thumb, the legislation wouldn't have been submitted.

This isn't an issue where someone was arrested. If it were, I'd be dumping money into a defense fund. This is an issue where we have to try and let people realize that guns aren't bad, ugly, self-animated objects that want to shoot everything. We have to convince people and we don't do that by OCing what offends THEM most and then sitting in the teen section of the library. 3 men that OC shotguns in the TEEN section of the library is not smart, I don't care if you're anti or pro gun. It's not a matter of what you like, when you're trying to sway opinions, it's what is offensive to OTHER PEOPLE.

There are 2 ways to get somebody to do something. They can convince you or they can force you. Shotguns are not going to convince people that are sitting on the fence.

http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/...pons_Policy_115694279.html?storySection=story

Read it. 3 grown men with shotguns sitting in the teen reading section. That's 100% legal, but it's 100% going to make the librarians and the parents of the children HATE the idea of OC and possibly of guns themselves.

UtahJarhead said:

You know what? The world we live in sucks and lots of people are anti-gun... but the simple fact of the matter is the act of carrying the shotguns into the library is what CAUSED the representative to add libraries to the list of victim disarmament zones. If they hadn't tried to stick out like a sore thumb, the legislation wouldn't have been submitted.

This isn't an issue where someone was arrested. If it were, I'd be dumping money into a defense fund. This is an issue where we have to try and let people realize that guns aren't bad, ugly, self-animated objects that want to shoot everything. We have to convince people and we don't do that by OCing what offends THEM most and then sitting in the teen section of the library. 3 men that OC shotguns in the TEEN section of the library is not smart, I don't care if you're anti or pro gun. It's not a matter of what you like, when you're trying to sway opinions, it's what is offensive to OTHER PEOPLE.

There are 2 ways to get somebody to do something. They can convince you or they can force you. Shotguns are not going to convince people that are sitting on the fence.

http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/...pons_Policy_115694279.html?storySection=story

Read it. 3 grown men with shotguns sitting in the teen reading section. That's 100% legal, but it's 100% going to make the librarians and the parents of the children HATE the idea of OC and possibly of guns themselves.

Click to expand...

I did read it, did you? It says three armed men. Not three men with shotguns. Is the teen section kind of like how the Brady Campaign compiles their stats with 25 year old gangbangers included in "Children killed by guns"?

DanM said:

I agree! Since a lot of people think concealed carry or open carry is controversial in many locations, you will leave your gun at home, correct? Don't want to make a scene, right?

Oh, and since a lot of people think owning guns is controversial, you shouldn't be controversial or make a scene by owning one. Please go to your nearest PD and turn it in for destruction.

Oh, what's that? You didn't mean *your* guns or *your* carry seemed controversial to you or "causes a scene" with a lot of people? Well it is to a lot of people. So, why are you exempt?

Click to expand...

We're talking about 2 issues related, but separate. OC is primarily about convincing people that guns aren't bad. You and I already know they are just chunks of metal and plastic. The sheep public don't know that and have to be convinced. Are you going to convince them of that if you've got your normal carry weapon in a holster and you go sit in the adult section reading a magazine or some Larry Correia and mind your own? What about if you get 2 of your adult buddies to each get a 12 gauge and sit with children that aren't your own for an hour and a half?

They can only ban guns if we convince the population it's a good idea. Nice job OCing the shotguns because they gave them the public the idea that Bauer's legislation is good. Now you can only hope that the public ignores Bauer.

We had a VERY similar incident here that was 100% legal and still stupid. A guy in Orem, UT a few weeks back decided to OC an AR-15 on a sling at a mall. It also wasn't his first time. Fortunately, Utah is far more pro-gun than the mid-west is, so you have to worry about it more. Out here, we still have religious zealouts that don't want to even THINK of seeing one, much less someone with an AR-15.

It's legal, but a small part of OCing is to convince the public guns are normal. Convince them, don't scare them.

UtahJarhead said:

You know what? The world we live in sucks and lots of people are anti-gun...

Click to expand...

Yes, there are. There are a lot of these people.

UtahJarhead said:

. . . CAUSED the representative to add libraries to the list of victim disarmament zones.

Click to expand...

Your guns and your carry also are the type that causes representatives to attempt to increase their lists of victim disarmament zones. Why are you exempt?

UtahJarhead said:

If they hadn't tried to stick out like a sore thumb . . .

Click to expand...

Your guns and your carry also stick out like a sore thumb to a lot of people. Why are you exempt?

UtahJarhead said:

we don't do that by OCing what offends THEM most

Click to expand...

Your guns and your carry also offend a lot of people. Why are you exempt?

UtahJarhead said:

it's what is offensive to OTHER PEOPLE.

Click to expand...

Your guns and your carry are also offensive to a lot of other people. Why are you exempt?

UtahJarhead said:

100% going to make the librarians and the parents of the children HATE the idea of OC and possibly of guns themselves.

Click to expand...

Your guns and your carry also are hated by many librarians and parents of "the children"(TM) (that term is trademarked by the gun-controllers, so I want to be sure to be legal when I use it ). Why are you exempt?

Just answer the simple question: "why are you exempt?", oh wise-one-whose-guns-and-carry-are-blessed? Oh, and a side question, who blessed your guns and carry as sacred and exempt? Who? You? Ok, aside from you, who?

Focus. The question is "Why are your guns and carry exempt?" Keep focused. Now answer. Simple question, really.

I'm not exempt, but I don't sit in the teen section of libraries. I go about my everyday activities when I OC. I get kicked out of big box stores for trying to buy hard drives or groceries while OCing.

I don't go hang out with children who are not my own in the hopes to make a scene. it's creepy if you're NOT armed. It's real damn creepy if you are.

it's legal, I hope it stays that way, but you have to do a lot more convincing to prove it, now.

UtahJarhead said:

I'm not exempt, but I don't sit in the teen section of libraries. I go about my everyday activities when I OC. I get kicked out of big box stores for trying to buy hard drives or groceries while OCing.

I don't go hang out with children who are not my own in the hopes to make a scene. it's creepy if you're NOT armed. It's real damn creepy if you are.

it's legal, I hope it stays that way, but you have to do a lot more convincing to prove it, now.

Click to expand...

It's unknown who, if anyone, sat in the kids/teens section. No one we know is owning up to that.


A few things to note:

1. This section is nearest the door, so if you're looking to sit down and just get to work on your daily activity, one might sit there, not realizing what section it is. It's also the section nearest the lobby computers.
2. Several of our members do have kids that they've gone to the Library with. I know of at least one person OCing in the Library with their wife and child.

...just some things to keep in mind.

UtahJarhead said:

OC is primarily about convincing people that guns aren't bad.

Click to expand...

No, OC is primarily about ""A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost." Or, at least at this website, that is primarily what open carry is about. Use your right to open carry, or lose it. Go look at the top of <www.opencarry.org>.

Now, convincing people that guns aren't bad is a worthy secondary pursuit, but it is secondary and not primary. Convincing people that guns aren't bad is worthy, but it does not trump primarily what OC is about which is "exercise your right so you do not lose it". In other words, if you stop open carrying in order to convince people that guns aren't bad, then you've gone too far in putting a secondary concern over what is primary about OC.

Now, I've demonstrated that your statement that "OC is primarily about convincing people that guns aren't bad" is wrong in that it is not what is primary about OC, at least here on this website as stated and which I agree with.

UtahJarhead said:

What about if you get 2 of your adult buddies to each get a 12 gauge and sit with children that aren't your own for an hour and a half?

Click to expand...

LGOC (long gun open carry) is against the rules to be discussed here. My above comments and any other responses I've made to you are not in reference to LGOC. You have serious weaknesses in all your statements which offend generally the concept of free and peaceable RKBA. Refrain from discussing LGOC here, or the admin may take steps against your posts. Friendly warning, I've seen the admin take steps against posts that reference LGOC.

Take any of my criticisms of you, please quote me, and respond. But, my criticisms do not refer to or defend LGOC, and you should not reference LGOC and either.

TheQ, thanks for the non-rabid response. I'm glad MI has reasoned voices. For the record, I'm from Sandusky, OH so I'm familiar with the demographics. That hasn't been brought into question, just putting it out there.

I'm of the opinion that if you are going to carry for a cause other than self defense (like to prove a point) then you need to do your due diligence and make sure you're going to be as normal as possible and still OC. I can see mistakes happen very easily in the situation and layout you're describing.

My real point is that no matter if it were a mistake or not, the public doesn't see that. In their mind, only wackos are going to carry guns because they're the same ones that carry scary shotguns and sit with children.

I understand what you're saying and it sounds like the most accessible portion of the library, closest to everything. Anti-RKBA politicians are looking for any excuse and any opportunity to introduce legislation to ban scariness. It's wrong, they should be strung up under USC 18 for depriving and conspiring to deprive people of civil liberties, but that's not going to happen. In fact, they're going to get re-elected. We can't give them the excuses they're looking for.

It's not about what I carry vs what you carry. It's about who's going to make the worse impression to the sheep. They're sheep, they don't understand... but the sheep vote. There has to be more votes from us than votes from them or we'll see our rights returned to little pathetic morsels like they were during the AWB.

We're making HUGE strides with our RKBA rights. We've got 3 states with Constitutional Carry (only one is new). We've got at least 2 more making the attempt at the same, Utah and Wyoming. We've got WI overturning the ban on CC hopefully very soon and FL allowing OC.

The difference between the library incident and other incidents is that the situation in your state is directly causal to them introducing legislation to outlaw carry in libraries. The anti-gun crowd saw an opportunity and found something that they could get the public to rally behind and now they're taking advantage of it. We gave it to them.

Looks like they need more blog traffic:
http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/02/17/more-on-michigan-ocers-taking-shotguns-to-libraries/
http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=4409

Long guns are not effective self-defense weapons.

Click to expand...

'nuff said.

UtahJarhead said:

I'm of the opinion that if you are going to carry for a cause other than self defense (like to prove a point) then you need to do your due diligence and make sure you're going to be as normal as possible

Click to expand...

Why would anyone carry "to prove a point"? You are among very few others I see once in while saying such a curious thing. What "point" are you talking about? I've asked this of these few others before, and never got a straight or clear response. Everyone I know carries for a purpose: defense of self or family, protection of their business or large sums of money they are transferring, hunting, etc. I've never, ever, heard someone say "Yeah, I carry to prove a point, and the point is X".

You are a very curious person who makes very curious statements.

Also, define "as normal as possible" as you see it. Please give guidance on your subjective terms. Normal to you may not be normal to me. Nor to what is "normal as possible" to other gun owners. Nor to what is "normal as possible" to citizens who don't own guns but support gun ownership.

After you define it, please respond to:
--Those who define "normal as possible" as "exercise CC, but don't exercise OC because that will make the sheep nervous".
--Those who define "normal as possible" as "exercise gun ownership for home defense, but don't push for CC in this city because that will make the sheep nervous".
--Those who define "normal as possible" as "exercise hunting, but don't advocate for or exercise ownership of black rifles because black rifles make the sheep nervous".

UtahJarhead said:

The difference between the library incident and other incidents is that the situation in your state is directly causal to them introducing legislation to outlaw carry in libraries.

Click to expand...

Not true. The library "incident" joins a LONG TRAIN of "incidents" currently or formerly used as direct causal excuses for anti-gun politicians to introduce specific anti-gun legislation targeting the type of RKBA exercise the "incident" represents. The news and legislative record are rife with this. Go look. You are wrong to imply the library "incident" is somehow unique or special in regard to causing action by anti-gun politicians. It is not. It has a vast host of other "incidents" cynically used by anti-gun politicians keeping it company.

Mr.Giggles said:

...what recourse does an 18-21 year old have other than a shotgun or rifle to defend himself/herself with???

Click to expand...

It's not illegal for an adult under 21 to own or carry a handgun, it's only illegal to buy one from a Federal dealer.
Or is there some law in MI that oppresses adults under 21 with regards to handguns?
You probably can't get a priviledge permit, but OC should be fine. Or am I misunderstanding MI law?

I believe its:

18 to own/buy if you buy the handgun privately

18 to OC YOUR own handgun

21 to get a CPL

21 to buy from a FFL

MKEgal said:

It's not illegal for an adult under 21 to own or carry a handgun, it's only illegal to buy one from a Federal dealer.
Or is there some law in MI that oppresses adults under 21 with regards to handguns?
You probably can't get a priviledge permit, but OC should be fine. Or am I misunderstanding MI law?

Click to expand...

A lot of people are saying stuff about under 21 can't carry a handgun and while technically untrue it is effectively true. In Michigan you can purchase a handgun from a private seller and OC it legally. However, to transport it, you must unload and case it, rendering it null. Without a CPL (21 to get CPL) you can't carry at any of the following:

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 234d.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.

(b) A church or other house of religious worship.

(c) A court.

(d) A theatre.

(e) A sports arena.

(f) A day care center.

(g) A hospital.

(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

Section (h) there means anywhere licensed to sell alcohol AT ALL. This means gas stations, grocery stores, party stores, restaurants, big box stores like Target, coffee shops that have liqueur flavoring, festivals with temporary alcohol permits, etc, etc

(There is some argument about whether or not the entire property or just the building is the PFZ for liquor licensed establishments. Most believe it's the building itself, but this may require a court case.)

So, being under 21 makes it nearly impossible to carry a handgun for self defense in Michigan.

Edit to add: Admittedly the same restrictions apply to LGOC, but it is still easier to purchase a long gun under 21 and there is little to no risk of being charged with a felony for concealing it. (I have personal experience with an officer claiming my OC'd pistol was concealed and being charged with failure to disclose for it. Failure to disclose is only a civil infraction. I wouldn't want to risk a felony.)

DanM,
I'm NOT wrong, far from it. This legislation was introduced because we gave her an opportunity to introduce it when the public was going to be in agreement with her the most. They're in agreement because of this incident.

And to prove a point? The point is that OC is done by law-abiding citizens and there's nothing unusual. Proving a point that it's a legal thing they're doing.

That being said, it's also the legal right of the anti-gun crowd to pass legislation against it. All they need is an excuse.

UtahJarhead said:

I'm not exempt, but I don't sit in the teen section of libraries. I go about my everyday activities when I OC. I get kicked out of big box stores for trying to buy hard drives or groceries while OCing.

I don't go hang out with children who are not my own in the hopes to make a scene. it's creepy if you're NOT armed. It's real damn creepy if you are.

Click to expand...

I've never been kicked out of a big box store or grocery store while OC'ing my holstered handgun. So, obviously you made a scene or were creepy with whatever you were carrying and how you were carrying or whatever sections of those places you carried into. Obviously, someone thought you were making enough of a scene or creeping them out and they kicked you out. It is people like you, pushing your rights just to prove a point and brandishing your scary gun wherever you feel like it, who are harming the right to keep and bear arms. If you would have carried a gun which was normal or carried it in a normal way or behaved normally, you would not have been kicked out! Since I have never been kicked out of such places, obviously what I am doing is not "in-your-face" like what you are doing.

There. See how that works? That was real easy for me to do. It is the truth that I've never been kicked out of such places, so the rest of my rant against you is valid, by the rhetorical rules you and a few others use.