• 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.

A customer at a Phoneix McDonald’s got robbed of his gun, don't be that guy.

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
So this author who can't even spell an important word in his title is completely unaware of the existence of retention holsters and treats the issue as a false dichotomy.

Additionally, as someone who's OC'd in AZ most of my life, I can see why something so unheard of is newsworthy. I'll stop OC'ing and buy a lottery ticket.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
considering the firearm was, quote: ..surveillance footage shows him reach into the back pocket of a man ordering at the counter and remove a pistol. unquote

additionally this event occurred almost thirty days ago...
http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...for-man-who-stole-gun-from-mcdonalds-customer

however, i'm more impress the BG got caught by the individual who lost the firearm who then challenged the BG to return the firearm and had his own firearm pointed at him and fortunately survived the encounter but failed to regain custody of his firearm.

bottom line the term dumbchit comes to mind.

ipse
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
So this author who can't even spell an important word in his title is completely unaware of the existence of retention holsters and treats the issue as a false dichotomy.

Additionally, as someone who's OC'd in AZ most of my life, I can see why something so unheard of is newsworthy. I'll stop OC'ing and buy a lottery ticket.
Spell, he can't even use the proper tense of words.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
What we really have is an incompetent CCer, NOT someone OCing. Frankly, that is no surprise - some CCers do tend to depend waay too much on the "invisibility" of their gun.
 

Animalou812

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Erlanger, Kentucky
I couldn't agree more. Some do believe just because their shirt covers it all is well. While imprinting the entire time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
... i'm more impress the BG got caught by the individual who lost the firearm who then challenged the BG to return the firearm and had his own firearm pointed at him and fortunately survived the encounter ...

To go on off this tangent, a long time ago some writers would advocate carrying a pistol unchambered, or something with a safety, for the express reason that if someone else snatched it, there was a decent chance they wouldn't know what to do to make it fire.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
As I expected, the spelling in the title of the article is now corrected. Care to guess how the author learned of his mistake so quickly? Yet, the content is the same, which means he is purposely using it to mislead people, and is not just the idiot he was pretending to be.

He's also deleted all the comments. Surprise, surprise.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
To go on off this tangent, a long time ago some writers would advocate carrying a pistol unchambered, or something with a safety, for the express reason that if someone else snatched it, there was a decent chance they wouldn't know what to do to make it fire.

actually surprised he didn't try to buy it back...'yo foo...here's a hundred if you give it back...'

ipse
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
As I expected, the spelling in the title of the article is now corrected. Care to guess how the author learned of his mistake so quickly? Yet, the content is the same, which means he is purposely using it to mislead people, and is not just the idiot he was pretending to be.

He's also deleted all the comments. Surprise, surprise.

crazythingsaboutgrammarnaziseveryoneknowstobetrue2_1422952649.jpg
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Either that website/article doesn't generate much interest, or any comments that don't fall in line with the original poster's are being moderated to non-existence.

Tanstaafl on May 3, 2016 at 1:50 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“… This was a case of concealed carry becoming unconcealed…”
Apparently the original poster of this article is unaware of the difference between an openly carried firearm and a concealed firearm that becomes visible.

“Planning on Concealed Carrying? Educate yourself on pitfalls first” would have been a much more honest headline.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Either that website/article doesn't generate much interest, or any comments that don't fall in line with the original poster's are being moderated to non-existence.

The first time I looked at the article, there were comments. There are none now. They've been actively deleted, so you can expect that future ones will never leave purgatory.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Who actually cares...

In case it wasn't obvious, the only reason I brought up the misspelling in the title was because the OP/author was holding this article up as a reliable and legitimate news piece, and lack of the most basic of proofreading is further evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
What we really have is an incompetent CCer, NOT someone OCing. Frankly, that is no surprise - some CCers do tend to depend waay too much on the "invisibility" of their gun.

Agreed. "(Incompetent) CCer" is the most applicable term.

I have yet to understand the logic behind the author's logic here:

article said:
kauboy on May 3, 2016 at 12:43 pm said:
Speaking of educating oneself first, this is not a case of open carry. This was a case of concealed carry becoming unconcealed. The gun carrier was carrying the firearm in a pocket holster in his back left pocket. When his arms were raised on the counter, the gun became exposed.

Reply ↓

Defensive Populance on May 3, 2016 at 1:00 pm said:
Then that became open carry. Open Carry means the firearm is visible to common observation. It doesn’t matter if it gets exposed briefly.
If he was CC, he surly did a horrible job in doing so and carrying a gun in his pocket without the holster is full can of worms

By the logic that "Unconcealed CC is actuall OC, then OC in a vehicle is CC.

What about if I walk down the street and a police officer approaches me from my left side while I'm OCing on my right side? The officer's "common observation" didn't allow him to see my sidearm, so did I just CC (possibly illegally)?:rolleyes:

Thankfully, these kinds of outlandish and legally "vague" terms have been fixed here in AZ.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Agreed. "(Incompetent) CCer" is the most applicable term.

I have yet to understand the logic behind the author's logic here:



By the logic that "Unconcealed CC is actuall OC, then OC in a vehicle is CC.

What about if I walk down the street and a police officer approaches me from my left side while I'm OCing on my right side? The officer's "common observation" didn't allow him to see my sidearm, so did I just CC (possibly illegally)?:rolleyes:

Thankfully, these kinds of outlandish and legally "vague" terms have been fixed here in AZ.
General comment -

Available to "common observation" does not depend on where the carrier stands/sits etc., whether in a phone booth, strong side to the wall in a restaurant, in another room, or with a hedge between himself and the viewer. It is entirely dependent on where viewer is and if he/she is in a direct line of sight to see it.

Exception noted for states that require a pemit to OC in a vehicle.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
If your opponent can't see your weapon then your weapon is concealed.

"The policy underlying the prohibition against concealed weapons is based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer. If a weapon is not concealed, one may take notice of the weapon and its owner and govern oneself accordingly, but no such opportunity for cautious behavior or self-preservation exists for one encountering the bearer of a concealed weapon. In light of this policy, the question whether a particular weapon was concealed should be considered from the point of view of one approaching the location of the weapon, and the intent of the defendant as to concealment should not be considered, since a defendant's innocent intent does not make a concealed weapon any more visible." People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1364 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. (2012) at 1371.

Only someone like Bob Owens and his kind would say that a handgun carried in one's back pocket or tucked in the small of one's back is an example of "Open Carry." If one's would be opponent cannot see the weapon then the weapon is concealed regardless of whether or not people standing behind the bearer of the weapon can see it.

Lost on the proponents of concealed carry who claim that there is a Second Amendment right to carry a weapon concealed for the purpose of self-defense is that it was well established that the use of a concealed weapon to kill one's opponent was in virtually every case murder when the Second Amendment was enacted. For example, see Mason's Case (1756) Foster 132 cited in A Treatise on The Pleas of the Crown, Volume 1, Hawkins 1803, pgs 239-241 in which the concealment of a sword beneath the defendant's coat and a failure to give his opponent (his brother) an opportunity to retreat (he advanced on his brother as fast as he retreated) or defend himself from the sword once it was drawn was clear proof of willful murder. The defendant and his brother were armed with cudgels (short fighting sticks) with which they had earlier been fighting. One brother left and returned with a sword concealed beneath his coat, he feigned to resume the fight with his cudgel then dropped it and drew his hidden sword and killed his brother.

This was not an outlier. If one was engaged in an otherwise fair fight, even if one did not start the fight, and he produced a weapon either concealed on his person or concealed about him and used it to kill his opponent then he had committed murder whereas an otherwise fair fight in which the arms were openly carried which resulted in the death of one's opponent was, at worst, manslaughter (which was pardonable assuming a jury would even convict).

Shortly after the Second Amendment was enacted the mere carriage of a weapon concealed became a crime because then, as now, the world was full of people eager to use their "tactical/secret" advantage (a concealed weapon) upon others.

As proof, one need look no further than the comments made by the concealed carry proponents here -> http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/05/01/clueless-open-carrier-robbed-gun-arizona/

I sympathize with Richard Nascak of Florida Carry, Inc., (who is no fan of mine) in his unsuccessful attempts to reason with these folks but how does one reason with someone who brags about his own cowardice as if it were a virtue?
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
In this case, the sidearm was not obviously displayed (so not Openly Carried). Kinda like wearing a shirt that covers all but the tip of an OWB holster ("Discreet OC", I believe one member called it in a thread by the same name). Is it OC or accidental display of a CC'ed holstered sidearm?

General comment -

Available to "common observation" does not depend on where the carrier stands/sits etc., whether in a phone booth, strong side to the wall in a restaurant, in another room, or with a hedge between himself and the viewer. It is entirely dependent on where viewer is and if he/she is in a direct line of sight to see it.

Exception noted for states that require a pemit to OC in a vehicle.

Duly noted, I was simply pointing out that intent to carry OPENLY seems to be thrown out the window entirely when the method of carry is dependent on the viewer alone. Is it the OCer's fault that the LEO is unable to see through the carrier's corporal mass to the sidearm worn prominently on the hip? Likewise with OC in a car. Just to be clear, this is not what happened with the gentleman at McD's.

Using California Right to Carry's cites as the start of a discussion, how much more visible can an OCer really make his OCed sidearm?

I understand the nuanced reality of the situation in some states, which can also criminalize behaviour that cannot be helped and should be entirely legal (being opaque, for one).
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...Kinda like wearing a shirt that covers all but the tip of an OWB holster ("Discreet OC", I believe one member called it in a thread by the same name). Is it OC or accidental display of a CC'ed holstered sidearm?...

I wouldn't even call it accidental. It's negligent display of a concealed firearm, not that it's illegal. I'm just using common words, not legal terms. There's nothing discreet about it.
 

Turbod'1

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
181
Location
Henderson, NV now Texas. I move a lot.
As I expected, the spelling in the title of the article is now corrected. Care to guess how the author learned of his mistake so quickly? Yet, the content is the same, which means he is purposely using it to mislead people, and is not just the idiot he was pretending to be.

He's also deleted all the comments. Surprise, surprise.

Of more interest are the links he provides in his 'assessment' that are either missing or point to OC fails... :rolleyes:
 
Top