Regular carry

I’ve decided that, going forward, in normal, everyday conversation, I will begin to transition away from referring to ‘open carry’ as ‘open carry’ and will begin referring to it as ‘normal carry,’ ‘regular carry,’ and eventually just ‘carry.’

Some would have others believe that open carry is a certain, different, special type of carry. They would have you believe that it is a certain categorization of carry. The truth is that so called ‘open carry’ is the type of carry which lacks any special characteristic. It is the ‘regular’ or ‘plain’ kind of carry. It is the natural way to carry. It is the default. It is the type of carry that you will perform when you do not go out of your way to carry any certain way.

To put it in perspective, people often carry a variety of utility items on their belts. For instance, they carry cell phones, knives, keys, etc. When these items are carried on the belt, they are not concealed, yet the carry of these items on the belt is never distinguished as ‘open.’ Why should any other utility item, even a handgun carried for the utility of self defense, be any different?

No, ‘regular carry’ is not the ‘special’ kind, the special kinds of carry are carry methods such as concealed carry. You take special care, you go out of your way, to concealed carry. It deserves distinguishment as a carry method. There is a special method with a special purpose to concealed carry. Athletic carry could be another. You might carry in a certain holster, specific to the task of not hindering mobility. Drop leg holsters come to mind. I’m sure you can think of other examples.

To clarify, I do not believe it’s wrong to refer to open carry as open carry. However, I believe that distinguishing carry as ‘open’ carry can, in some cases, be intentionally or unintentionally used to aid in the perpetuation of misconceptions about regular carry, and we as advocates should be aware of this and ready to combat those misconceptions. I also believe that referring to the normal carry of a handgun as regular or normal carry could be a good conversation starter and open the door to clearing up some of these misconceptions that some of the general public may have fallen victim to. “What do you mean, ‘regular’ carry?” someone might ask. “I simply mean, carrying a handgun naturally without going out of my way to carry in any special manner. I find the most natural way to carry is on my belt, given the weight of the item being carried, and the accessibility of carrying it there.” might be your reply.

This idea has probably come up and been discussed before. Please allow me to reignite the discussion since I was not a part of any of those conversations, and just recently had this idea myself. Your thoughts are appreciated.

interesting epiphany,

but as Juliet stated in act II, scene II:

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

therefore it is your belief it is the name of the device which causes ill will with citizens rather than the actual device?

to expend the time and effort in reinforcing a name change with the populaces who's overall perception, from whatever entity, that the device is a bad thing is going to be extensive.

however, our energy might be better served towards educating the populaces on the benefits of the device by a name as it known by the masses already.

further getting the word out to the masses is the trick instead of the consistent select esoteric group who already OC & CC which could be counter productive as well as a mute point.

ipse

While I do not disagree that OC is the natural and should be the normal way to carry, we must consider the purpose/reason for OCDO as well as our ultimate target audience. We aren't just preaching to the choir here, but to the fence sitters and even the antis with whom we may only have one shot - no prolonged dialog.

Your approach may work well for you on a one-on-one basis where you can follow through with what "normal/regular" carry means, but becomes lost, missed when generated by a keyboard into the vast internet.

I did mean in day to day conversation where there would be ample opportunity to discuss. And I agree that trying to reeducate to use a different word would be extensive and probably give little benefit. The idea is not to use a different word, the idea is to force one to realize what it is they are actually talking about. Solus, I agree with you. I believe tho that using the term regular carry instead of open carry can actually serve to accomplish what you are talking about. Again, in situations where followup discussion is immediately possible.

But I'd also have you consider this... If you walked up to an average Joe on the street and in the context of a discussion about firearms in general just said 'regular carry,' left to determine on their own what you meant, what do you believe they will conclude? I'd be willing to bet money that they will conclude you mean carrying without a special method, ie. Open carry. But they would have to think it through and realize that open carry is normal carry. They would draw the connection in their own mind, instantly validating the connection in their eyes.

stealthyeliminator said:

I did mean in day to day conversation where there would be ample opportunity to discuss. And I agree that trying to reeducate to use a different word would be extensive and probably give little benefit. The idea is not to use a different word, the idea is to force one to realize what it is they are actually talking about. Solus, I agree with you. I believe tho that using the term regular carry instead of open carry can actually serve to accomplish what you are talking about. Again, in situations where followup discussion is immediately possible.

But I'd also have you consider this... If you walked up to an average Joe on the street and in the context of a discussion about firearms in general just said 'regular carry,' left to determine on their own what you meant, what do you believe they will conclude? I'd be willing to bet money that they will conclude you mean carrying without a special method, ie. Open carry. But they would have to think it through and realize that open carry is normal carry. They would draw the connection in their own mind, instantly validating the connection in their eyes.

Click to expand...

That's some deep stuff right there. Thought provoking even.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

stealthyeliminator said:

But I'd also have you consider this... If you walked up to an average Joe on the street and in the context of a discussion about firearms in general just said 'regular carry,' left to determine on their own what you meant, what do you believe they will conclude? I'd be willing to bet money that they will conclude you mean carrying without a special method, ie. Open carry. But they would have to think it through and realize that open carry is normal carry. They would draw the connection in their own mind, instantly validating the connection in their eyes.

Click to expand...

That...makes far more sense than any CC-only advocate would care to admit.

Not all states I suspect, but open carry is the term used in state and municipal codes in MO.

Call it what you like, it is open carry, and not just of a handgun.

I have yet to hold a conversation with anyone who sees my pistol and I/we use open carry in the conversation. OC is what I do, not how I speak.

Example:

Me: At a local "C" store early one morning.
Joe Citizen: "Hey, can you do that legal like?"
Me: Pointing at a cop getting coffee "Ask him."
Cop: Nods head "Yep."
Joe Citizen: "Cool, when did that law pass?
Cop and me: Mildly amused looking at each other.
Cop: "Have a good day fellas."
Me: "Be safe Officer."

I like the idea behind it. Doesn't work in every state (those states that forbid the Open Carry), but could work well in states like Nevada where OC is not defined or listed in any statute. OC is legal here because it's not prohibited, CCing is a felony unless you have a magical permit. So in essence, OC is the "normal" method and a permit is required for the other one.

I like the idea. We here at OCDO talk about the normalization of firearms in society. As such, we must consider perceptual and image concerns.

Characterizing what we currently call open carry as just plain-old, everyday, ho-hum carry is another method of normalization.

After all, it is known as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, not the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Openly.

I also like calling it constitutional carry, however it's kind of a mouthful, and it usually leads to more confusion than it resolves . . .

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more my perspective shifts. In cases like Texas, the common conception is that CC is allowed and OC is not allowed. This isn't entirely accurate, I believe. The actuality is that if you chose to carry, you are compelled to take further, state-mandated action, in that you are compelled to conceal. It is not that you are allowed to conceal, it is that you are compelled by law to conceal. This is perfect for the gun-loving anti-liberty folk. They can carry their piece, and still proxy-force their will on others via state mandates.

stealthyeliminator said:

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more my perspective shifts. In cases like Texas, the common conception is that CC is allowed and OC is not allowed. This isn't entirely accurate, I believe. The actuality is that if you chose to carry, you are compelled to take further, state-mandated action, in that you are compelled to conceal. It is not that you are allowed to conceal, it is that you are compelled by law to conceal. This is perfect for the gun-loving anti-liberty folk. They can carry their piece, and still proxy-force their will on others via state mandates.

Click to expand...

Please explain the apparent inaccuracy. If OC (handgun) is allowed, when and under what circumstance?

bc.cruiser said:

Please explain the apparent inaccuracy. If OC (handgun) is allowed, when and under what circumstance?

Click to expand...

My point is that the concealed element is compelled as opposed to allowed. You have the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, the concealed carry statutes are restrictions, not allowances.

Note that there are technical exceptions to the prohibition of handgun possession which would allow for OC under certain circumstances but that is beside the point that I was attempting to make. The point is, the right to keep and bear arms sets the bar. From that perspective, the CC statutes are not allowing you to do something, they are compelling you to do something - conceal your handgun. This is a restriction, a government mandate, not an allowance or exception.

I like it. States that ban OC are banning normal carry.