South Chipotle in Longmont.

[cscitney87]

Yeah look all we're saying is perhaps... Shoulder horizontal holsters have their place and time. Lots of things do in life. It's just what it is. Don't sweep your neighborhood ice cream parlor with a pair of .45s please. All manufacturers make them because they are useful in certain situations and not useful in others. It's called variety and it's the spice of life. Normally a holster with the pistol pointed down is the most responsible decision one makes when carrying a loaded handgun. Other situations call for other preparations, surely. Not always will there be other people standing behind, in front of, next to, and above, and below you. That's my take that's all. I'm not trying to trample on your rights but honestly I just wouldn't want anybody's loaded muzzle pointed at me. You posted so you are duly apt to take the good with the bad.

 

[Las Vegan]

It is true that a verticle holster may point at the body part of the person wearing it. However, that is MY leg or foot that it is pointing at...

Someone pointing a loaded weapon at someone for "comfort" reasons = selfish BLUE FALCON

So your belt holster, the one canted at a 15 degree angle, the one that points at the legs and feet of everyone standing behind you in a line or walking behind you, makes you a selfish BLUE FALCON? Ok, if you say so.

:shrug:

 

[trooper46]

So your belt holster, the one canted at a 15 degree angle, the one that points at the legs and feet of everyone standing behind you in a line or walking behind you, makes you a selfish BLUE FALCON? Ok, if you say so.

:shrug:

You ASSUME I carry an angled holster or that I advocate them. I DO NOT. My holster points directly at the ground for the most part. The only way that muzzle is pointing at someone is if they decide to hug my leg or stand within an inch of me. At that point it's there own damn fault for breaking into my 1 inch bubble of personal space. It's not going to point at someone every time I turn around UNLIKE the OP's choice of carry and the situation he chose to do it in.

The OP's nonchalant attitude about firearms safety and respect for others is also what earns him the BF title.

 

[Las Vegan]

only way that muzzle is pointing at someone is if they decide to hug my leg or stand within an inch of me. At that point it's there own damn fault for breaking into my 1 inch bubble of personal space.

So if your muzzle sweeps someone, it's their fault, but if the OP sweeps someone it's his fault, and you have no condemnation at all for the 99%+ of all open and concealed carriers who have their holsters canted. Curiouser and curiouser, cried Alice.

The OP's nonchalant attitude about firearms safety and respect for others is also what earns him the BF title.

The OP displayed not a single violation of basic firearms safety, unless you know something that Jeff Cooper didn't. And his "respect for others"? You are referring to the man who approached him with profanity and insults, to whom he responded by repeatedly calling him "sir" and telling him that he hoped that he enjoyed his meal.

Sorry, but you are running out of steam here.

 

[jhco50]

I too open carry, and carry on a bike (scooter actually). I carry on my belt and It is quite comfortable. If I had to draw while on my bike, I would end up in the ditch anyway.

I understand the mans concern. I would be a bit PO'd if a muzzle was pointing at me and my wife. I will be honest, that was not the best circumstance you were in. I would seriously come up with another way to carry my firearm. I know you had all the safeties working, but that muzzle is might big from the wrong end, and s**t happens.

 

[since9]

You ASSUME I carry an angled holster or that I advocate them. I DO NOT. My holster points directly at the ground for the most part. The OP's nonchalant attitude about firearms safety and respect for others is also what earns him the BF title.

When I first quoted your post, I was ready with some glib response, but the more I thought about it...

This will run counter to 90% of the comments on this third, but I concur wholeheartedly with trooper46. Here's why:

Even if your firearm has a hammer interlock, a 6-lb trigger pull, a safety, AND you don't have around chambered, I was always taught that the second point of firearms safety is never point your firearm at another person unless you're ready, willing, and able to pull the trigger. The first point I was taught is that "the gun is always loaded." Additional things I've learned over the years include the fact that safeties and interlocks might not work as advertised (I learned that one the hard way), and any nut can walk up to you and pull the trigger while withdrawing your firearm (I learned that from not one, but three LEOs with whom I've been friends).

Most importantly, however, I was taught that it's simply not polite.

So, back to the OP's question:

How do you deal with a guy like that?

Simple, marinepilot81 - you listen to him. And hopefully, you learn.

Furthermore, from one pilot to another, whether guns, bombs, or missiles, you well know we safe our weapons before leaving the range. Yes, your firearm may have been on safe, even unloaded, but in the Air Force we had an additional restriction when carrying bombs, missiles, bullets or even just thin air, because those safeties can, and have failed (and parts have fallen off of aircraft): "Do not fly over populated or built-up areas." That may be a DoD rule, not just an AF rule. Regardless, in my mind, it's identical to "do not point a firearm at another person."

One of my three concealed-carry rigs is a shoulder holster, but with mine, the muzzle of my firearm points down.

The chance of the mentioned firearm going off is irrelevant. No matter how one wants to spin this, the fact remains that the muzzle of a loaded firearm under the OP's control was pointed at man and his wife. There are two things at issue here: respect and basic firearms safety.

Bingo.

The OP displayed not a single violation of basic firearms safety, unless you know something that Jeff Cooper didn't.

Horsehockey!

And you're apparently ignorant of Jeff Cooper's rules:

1. All guns are always loaded!

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!​

There are two others, but the NRA breaks them down into just three "always keep" rules, the first of which is:

A. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.​

No matter how you'd like to spin it, folks, horizontal carry holsters violate both Jeff Cooper's "Inviolate Rules of Firearms Safety," as well as those of the NRA.

Unless you're only carrying while lying on your back...

 

[marinepilot81]

Back with you

The military has relaxed its policy on forums in theater so I'm back on board...

1. I will concede that design plays a part in function. The V22's ramp mounted weapon system stows facing inboard and, when a crew chief used the weapon as a hand rail, a round was fired into the cockpit between the 2 pilots.

That being said, it was action and failure to follow procedures that caused the mishap, not the design. I am not concerned with the "potential for disaster" at all. Saying a horizontally carried pistol is egregious, unacceptable, dangerous, or anything else uses the same logic as saying "a woman wearing a skirt is one step closer to protistution than a woman wearing pants." I also don't consider a woman pointing her crossed legs at me as act of solicitation.

2. That man never thought he was in any danger. Never. I antagonize house cats while making sure not to taunt the lions. He was willing to taunt a law-abiding citizen, but probably wouldn't have used the same tone with Plaxico Burress. The man sat there for 30 mins before saying something. He also RETURNED to his seat once I refused to engage in argument. Logic forces me to believe he's either less concerned with his wife's safety than his burrito or that he never perceived any true threat...because he remained in his seat and then returned to it after our discussion. I know of no animal that behaves in such a manner after sensing a life or death dilemma.

3. Since aviation was brought into the discussion, I have carried a condition-1 M9 with hundreds of Marines behind me and not one has ever felt uncomfortable. Depending on the rig, I also carry one on my body armor that points directly at my copilot and none of them have complained, either. Though disabled in many, there's a switch inside our head that enables sanity and clear thought. We all know the difference between driving safely and driving wrecklessly. Driving is the constant to which none of us object; the method and apparent carelessness are what trigger a hazard.

Bottom line....

Dude eating a burrito = dude eating a burrito.
Dude waving a gun around and pointing it = threat.

Normalizing OC? How about we normalize the staying of emotion and reliance upon fact and reason instead.

 

[Gunslinger]

The military has relaxed its policy on forums in theater so I'm back on board...

1. I will concede that design plays a part in function. The V22's ramp mounted weapon system stows facing inboard and, when a crew chief used the weapon as a hand rail, a round was fired into the cockpit between the 2 pilots.

That being said, it was action and failure to follow procedures that caused the mishap, not the design. I am not concerned with the "potential for disaster" at all. Saying a horizontally carried pistol is egregious, unacceptable, dangerous, or anything else uses the same logic as saying "a woman wearing a skirt is one step closer to protistution than a woman wearing pants." I also don't consider a woman pointing her crossed legs at me as act of solicitation.

2. That man never thought he was in any danger. Never. I antagonize house cats while making sure not to taunt the lions. He was willing to taunt a law-abiding citizen, but probably wouldn't have used the same tone with Plaxico Burress. The man sat there for 30 mins before saying something. He also RETURNED to his seat once I refused to engage in argument. Logic forces me to believe he's either less concerned with his wife's safety than his burrito or that he never perceived any true threat...because he remained in his seat and then returned to it after our discussion. I know of no animal that behaves in such a manner after sensing a life or death dilemma.

3. Since aviation was brought into the discussion, I have carried a condition-1 M9 with hundreds of Marines behind me and not one has ever felt uncomfortable. Depending on the rig, I also carry one on my body armor that points directly at my copilot and none of them have complained, either. Though disabled in many, there's a switch inside our head that enables sanity and clear thought. We all know the difference between driving safely and driving wrecklessly. Driving is the constant to which none of us object; the method and apparent carelessness are what trigger a hazard.

Bottom line....

Dude eating a burrito = dude eating a burrito.
Dude waving a gun around and pointing it = threat.

Normalizing OC? How about we normalize the staying of emotion and reliance upon fact and reason instead.

You carry your M-9 in DA mode--hammer down, firing pin safety, and your copilot knows and trusts you with his life, as you do his. I think the guy's concern was cocked and locked, wasn't it? Many don't feel that is something they want pointed at them. I carry a 1911 generally, or a Hi-Power, and know either is safe in condition one. Still, I don't want a loaded gun pointed at me either. That's why my Hi-Power was condition three in the Phantom. G force of an ejection would have fired a round irrespective of the hammer's position because of the inertia firing pin. Wouldn't have hurt the other guy in the cockpit, but may well have ruined my day. As I said, I think you handled the situation well, but can see the other guy's point of view--even if he was a dick in how he handled it. Unfortunately, "fact and reason" don't have much weight when fear and self preservation come into play.

PS Welcome back from a fellow Aviator.