The Open Carry Argument

[Alec411]

imported post

There are comments on this site, left by members, where it is clear from the context of their posting has been 'the satisfaction they feel from having intimidated'. If you spent a fair amount of time on this site, you too have seen it!

I can remember a comment that ran like this; 'why OC a plain black gun, when you can carry a BIG nickel covered piece of steel?'...... 'and watch people's expressions change'. This site isn't about "FOC", " Flashy Open Carry"

It is the responsibility of those who prefer OC, to "educate" those who OC for all the wrong reasons. With each right, comes at least one responsibility!

OC/CC are not mutually exclusive rights! They are nothing more than a person's expression of his/her personal, preferred, mode of carry! THERE'S CERTAINLY NO ISSUE OF CONTENTION HERE!

If we were talking about MOTORCYCLES, it is as silly as two people engaged in the following discussion:

JOHN: Whatcha ride dude?

Jake: What else a H/D man.

John: Oh man, H/D's are a piece of CRAP,:cuss:

Jake: Man that "RICE BURNER" you're sittin on, is sheet metal & epoxy!

Now that ridiculous conversation can be heard between two gunowners, on the topic of OC/CC, and we've all seen it on this site.

IS THIS CONDUCIVE TO OUR RIGHT TO 'KEEP AND BEAR ARMS'?

Not even a little! Perhaps each of us should give thought to that question, before posting a comment.

 

[Alec411]

imported post

PROPS TO "CONCEALED" - Alec 411

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

I understand what concealed is saying, and he has a point. Wearing a gun openly is still unusual, kind of like wearing a blue mohawk and chains, etc., and some folks here do seem to get a kick out of shocking the "sheeple" (I hate that word when blanket applied to the public).

But part of the reason for OC is to enlighten people to the fact that carrying a gun is a right and is not a threat. Accordingly, when I OC I try to dress nice and not attract lots of attention. The only way to get people to get used to blue mohawks is to wear them more often while quietly going about your business.

(I wonder what I would look like with a blue mohawk? Probably pretty stupid...just thinking out loud.)

 

[Unclebuck]

imported post

I have been thinking about OCing for several months now.

IMO... I think we have a right to carry guns. Im not sure we have a right to carry them in an open manner. I have read dozens of stories on this board on LEO's situations and run ins with the public.

Why would I want to put myself in the situation of having guns drawn towards me?

Why would I want to ruin an outing with my family having the cops question me?

Why do I want to get negative looks and have run ins with management and others everytime I go out?

It seems to me that some folks want to OC strictly for attention. I am sure most of you want to do it for other reasons politcal or personal.

I have decided to remain CC for the time being. I do business in a small area and I am always running into customers and people in my industry while out and about. I do not want the stigma of being a "gun nut"

For the record I do support Georgia Carry and the NRA for the right to bear arms.

 

[tito887]

imported post

I would remind you that the right to bear arms explicitly means wearing the firearm out in the open. That has historically always been the right.

 

[protector84]

imported post

I OC most of the time although I now have a CCW permit. I generally conduct myself in a courteous and decent manner as that is how I was raised and that is just my personality. I will be rude and nasty in public (regardless of carry technique) if a situation warrants it. Acting normal and wearing a gun openly will simply speak for itself. People who are pro-gun will find it interesting. They will be fascinated by it if they are not yet gun owners and may or may not start a dialogue with you and if so, it should be an interesting one. Most gun-owners who take their rights seriously will also be happy to see someone peacefully exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. The second group of people which will be the majority that you will encounter will be the neutral or on-the-fence characters. Most will be in condition white and won't even notice the gun in the first place and from a distance will probably think it is a phone. The ones who do notice will probably write it off that you are an off-duty police officer or security guard. Some might clearly conclude that you are an armed citizen, they probably will think it is weird, and they may question you about it but these are the perfect people to enlighten and educate. They generally won't freak out and probably will walk away having at least been exposed to a different perspective on gun ownership. The last group which really isn't that common consists of the anti-gun crowd. The gun will scare them, upset them, and otherwise annoy them. However, these are the people who you cannot educate in the first place as they are hard-headed and idiotic so as long as they ignore you, it is wise to ignore them. They usually will ignore you as they are scared to begin with. If they feel threatened by the mere sight that you are wearing a gun openly and lawfully going about your business, that is tough shit. Likewise, if they start trouble like creating a scene of their own, I would properly put them in their place using any necessary phrases of your choice. If there are enough people around and one of these types starts to create a scene, chances are the other more neutral or pro-gun people around you will actually assist you in chewing them out. Carryinga gun openly really isn't that big of a deal to most people and you can choose which political battles to pick with these people. If people are interested or generally fence-sitting curious, conduct yourself appropriately with them. If someone is being a jerk, I have no problem acting that way back. They aren't going to learn anyway and you do have a First Amendment right to conduct your business lawfully and reserve the right to express yourself how you see fit. Likewise, in the rare case that these anti's call 911 on you, the police don't want to hear it either and by the time they even show up, you will probably be gone anyway.

On another note, I actually called the non-emergency police number one time to ask them if carrying openly at a public event downtown was going to be an issue. The operator said that it was perfectly fine and that as long as the gun is visible and you are abiding by the laws, there is no problem. I then asked the operator if it would raise eyebrows amongst the general public. He said that it might but you have a legal right to do so and if someone else interferes with your lawful enjoyment of the event, you have the right toaskthemto stop and can even "call us" if they continue to harrass you. Interesting to hear that from a cop.

 

[Unclebuck]

imported post

tito887 wrote:

I would remind you that the right to bear arms explicitly means wearing the firearm out in the open. That has historically always been the right.

Can you show me that in the 2nd Amendment? I can not find where is states you have the right to walk around in public with a glock strapped to the outside of your clothes.

My point being is I am for the right to bear arms, but I also do not want to rub it in people's faces. No harm in flying under the rader.

 

[concealed]

imported post

"IS THIS CONDUCIVE TO OUR RIGHT TO 'KEEP AND BEAR ARMS'S (OC vs. CC)"

Well, IMHO, not if it freaks people out to the point where they call their elected representatives and complain. Remember, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court still allows states and cities to put a leash on our right to bear arms.

I'll continue to fight to allow you to OC, but you also have to realize what kind of negative effect OC has on some people. That's all I'm trying to point out here.

 

[Vegassteve]

imported post

Unclebuck wrote:

tito887 wrote:

I would remind you that the right to bear arms explicitly means wearing the firearm out in the open. That has historically always been the right.

Can you show me that in the 2nd Amendment? I can not find where is states you have the right to walk around in public with a glock strapped to the outside of your clothes.

My point being is I am for the right to bear arms, but I also do not want to rub it in people's faces. No harm in flying under the rader.

Can you show me in the first amendment where it states you can run around on the Internet and type your dribble? By you typing here and speaking in public you are rubbing the right to free speech in others faces.



Maybe you should keep to yourself.No harm in flying under the radar(correct spelling). Maybe you fly under a rader( your spelling)whatever that is.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Unclebuck wrote:

tito887 wrote:

I would remind you that the right to bear arms explicitly means wearing the firearm out in the open. That has historically always been the right.

Can you show me that in the 2nd Amendment? I can not find where is states you have the right to walk around in public with a glock strapped to the outside of your clothes.

My point being is I am for the right to bear arms, but I also do not want to rub it in people's faces. No harm in flying under the rader.

I can show you in several state constitutions, such as Missouri's, which are contemporary to the 2A, reading, "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." IMO, in those states, the right to strap a glock to the outside of my clothes is explicitly protected, whereas CC is a privilege from the state.

Given the contemporary nature of those certain constitutions with the BOR, and further given that the 2A does not grant the RKBA in any specific manner, but rather dictates to the federal government that RKBA generally shall not be infringed, yes I think that I ahve the right to walk around in public with a Glock strapped to the outside of my clothes.

I also think I have a right to walk around with a better pistol, such as a Springfield Arms XD (*waves at Bravo Sierra*) strapped to the inside or outside of my clothes as I so desire.

All that being said, I think most (as opposed to many) of us here have no opposition to CC or OC and are proponents of the right of the citizens to be armed how and where they will, as is comfortable and appropriate for them.

 

[XD-GEM]

imported post

From the Constitution of the State of Louisiana, Article 1, Section 11:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
[align=justify]Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.[/align]

This implies that both methods are enshrined in the Constitution, but that open-carry is preferred, while concealed carry may be regulated or outright prohibited.

Also, IIRC, Justice Scalia - in his Heller opinion - discussed the common practice of the day in Revolutionary times of both open and concealed carry, and that the people of that time really didn't make a big deal about either as a preference. For them, bearing arms (carrying) was having them somewhere on or about their person.

 

[concealed]

imported post

Look at the wild west. Everybody open carried or concealed carried or both. The reason was because it would take days to find law enforcement anywhere, and there were no cell phones.

Today, those opposed to OC or CC or even having a gunassume that there's a cop on every corner ready to save you. Well, since that ain't the case the right to bear armsis still in force. However, there is no absolute right to OCor CC. Those rights are given by the state, and much to mydismay the SupremeCourt leftit that way.

So, no, you don't have aconstitutional right to strap a gun to your waist and go wherever you want. That right is given to you by the state and is not necessarily transerable to another state.

If enough citizens don't like the idea of having other citizens running around withsidearms, you may find OC in your state going byebye.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Unclebuck wrote:

tito887 wrote:

I would remind you that the right to bear arms explicitly means wearing the firearm out in the open. That has historically always been the right.

Can you show me that in the 2nd Amendment? I can not find where is states you have the right to walk around in public with a glock strapped to the outside of your clothes.

Show me where in the constitution is says you have a right to wear a red shirt.

 

[XD-GEM]

imported post

concealed wrote:

However, there is no absolute right to OCor CC. Those rights are given by the state, and much to mydismay the SupremeCourt leftit that way.

So, no, you don't have aconstitutional right to strap a gun to your waist and go wherever you want. That right is given to you by the state and is not necessarily transerable to another state.

Perhaps you don't understand that the rights in the Constitution are not granted by the government but are said to pre-exist the Constitution itself. They are simply enumerated and protected by their listing in the Constitution.

Even if that were not the case, a constitutional right tobear armscannot be abrogated by denying the only two methods of carry - open and concealed. Thatwould be illogical.

As to going wherever you want, that falls into the category of reasonable restriction on a right. There will be places that it is reasonable to prohibit all firearms. These will usually be quite limited in both size and scope and will serve a clearly compelling public interest (prohibiting carry inside Angola State Penitentiary comes to mind); or they will be declared unconstitutional.

 

[protector84]

imported post

As far as I'm concerned, people who are anti-OC are anti-gun. If you personally prefer CC then that is your choice but you should understand the history of gun ownership and carry in America. 100 years ago it was the norm for all gun owners to carry their guns openly. Concealed carry is only a recent invention for the most part. Generally, most if not all states outright prohibited concealed carry until recently and have authorized it through a priviledged permit system. OC was seen as the norm as honest citizens carried their guns openly whereas criminals would have a reason to hide them. Even the current anti-gun states such as Maryland, Massachusettes, and New York allowed carry unlike today. Unless I have my history wrong around the time this country was founded, men and even sometimes women and children were outright expected to carry guns around regardless of what state or colony they lived in. There were times where regardless of state, nobody would blink an eye to see someone walking down the street with a long gun and children would even bring their fathers' guns to school for show-and-tell. Inrelatively recent times, guns have been part of the school curriculum where students could learn about gun safety, hunting, and target shooting. In the 232 years of our country's history, most of the culture and legal system has supported the right for Americans to keep and BEAR arms. Bearing arms means OPENLY. It has generally been in the past 100 years where these rights have slowly started to erode with most of the erosion taking place in just the past 30 years.

Today, even gun owners are not very pro-gun and we can see that right here in this thread. OC has now become few and far between, the general public is scared of guns, and virtually nobody is educated on firearms except those who were lucky enough to be born in a pro-gun family or who chose to learn on their own accord. We are now in a general atmosphere where the public is under the impression that guns are illegal outside of the home and even in the home if they aren't unloaded and locked away, where only special people carry such as police officers, and that you have to have a special permit to carry and that it must be concealed. At the same time, schools and workplaces are "weapons free zones" where if someone even mentions the word "gun" an internal investigation is done against the potentially "dangerous" employee or student. At the same time our nation has undergone this erosion of understanding our 2nd Amendment rights, the culture has also shifted away from "the home of the brave" to the "home of the scared." Obviously, none of us did live in the "Wild West" but I am having a real hard time believing that it was common practice for men to be scared to go outside at night. Look at people today. They are a total mess. They are scared of their own shadow and few are able to carry on an intelligent conversation about anything. If there is ever a time where people need to take gun ownership and bearing arms seriously, it is none other than NOW.

 

[Unclebuck]

imported post

Vegassteve wrote:

Unclebuck wrote:

tito887 wrote:

I would remind you that the right to bear arms explicitly means wearing the firearm out in the open. That has historically always been the right.

Can you show me that in the 2nd Amendment? I can not find where is states you have the right to walk around in public with a glock strapped to the outside of your clothes.

My point being is I am for the right to bear arms, but I also do not want to rub it in people's faces. No harm in flying under the rader.

Can you show me in the first amendment where it states you can run around on the Internet and type your dribble? By you typing here and speaking in public you are rubbing the right to free speech in others faces.



Maybe you should keep to yourself.No harm in flying under the radar(correct spelling). Maybe you fly under a rader( your spelling)whatever that is.

Forum: an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.




Glad to see you are open minded. You really got me with the spell check. ZING.

Maybe you should take a nap in your garage with the car running??

 

[Alec411]

imported post

red shirt was dead on anology! Thank you. When the word "historically" is used without a note or footnote, I give it no creedence. If one reads the writings of the time, folks used both methods of carry just as now.

alec

 

[XD-GEM]

imported post

Alec411 wrote:

red shirt was dead on anology! Thank you. When the word "historically" is used without a note or footnote, I give it no creedence. If one reads the writings of the time, folks used both methods of carry just as now.

alec

Now that I think about it, where does the Constitution say you have a right to wear any clothes at all? Some things may rightly be inferred, even when not explicit. I doubt the Founders meant for us all to run around naked; still, perhaps they should have been more specific about that.

 

[Vegassteve]

imported post

Unclebuck wrote:

Vegassteve wrote:

Unclebuck wrote:

tito887 wrote:

I would remind you that the right to bear arms explicitly means wearing the firearm out in the open. That has historically always been the right.

Can you show me that in the 2nd Amendment? I can not find where is states you have the right to walk around in public with a glock strapped to the outside of your clothes.

My point being is I am for the right to bear arms, but I also do not want to rub it in people's faces. No harm in flying under the rader.

Can you show me in the first amendment where it states you can run around on the Internet and type your dribble? By you typing here and speaking in public you are rubbing the right to free speech in others faces.



Maybe you should keep to yourself.No harm in flying under the radar(correct spelling). Maybe you fly under a rader( your spelling)whatever that is.

Forum: an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.




Glad to see you are open minded. You really got me with the spell check. ZING.

Maybe you should take a nap in your garage with the car running??

As I would expect from someone like you there was no retort of real merit after it was pointed out to you how wrong you are about OC.And how wrong you were about the 2nd A. My reply to you was trying to show you how absurd your argument was. Obviously you didn't get it.Thanks for thesnide PM as well. You have been reported to the mods as someone who does not wish to abide by the rules.

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

The concepts of rights and privileges have been discussed numerous times on this and other similar sites. Simply put, a privilege is an action or activity which is permitted. A right is something which exists.

What this really means is that a privilege can both be conveyed and removed at the discretion of some authority. The issuance or suspension of a driver's license is an excellent example. Basically, the authority maintains ownership of the privilege which allows it to "permit" or recind the privilege.

A right, on the other hand, exists. This means that it is incapable of being conveyed by some authority because they do not have ownership of the right. The Bill of Rights is a fine example of this fact. Nowhere in the Constitution is the concept or idea of rights addressed.. this only appears in the Bill of Rights. And the Bill of Rights confers or conveys not one right to the people. It's English is quite clear in that it recognizes existing rights, then warns government that these rights, and any other rights reserved by the people, are not to be infringed or removed. This is why the Bill of Rights is unamendable. It is cast in stone and therefore, never to be altered.

Now as far as the Second Amendment and carrying open or concealed, no mention is made of either method of carry. What this means is both methods, or any method, is within the purview of the discretion of the individual, not the state. When we look at laws, we must remember that state codes tell us what we cannot do.. not what we can do. If they do not spefically spell out a mode of carry, then how we chose to carry is up to us.

Finally, we OC or we CC here in Virginia because we are Virginians. It is our right. It is our heritage. It is our culture.