ConditionThree
State Pioneer
imported post
I discovered recently that OC makes for a highly contentious subject for debate. In attempting to learn more about California law, I thought I would ask on another forum that is not dedicated exclusively to open carry. The question I asked was intended to be a serious inquiry of what the law stated, but it quickly degenerated into a free for all flame throwing.
The question I asked was "Is there any statutory duty for a CCW licensee to conceal their weapon?" This and a brief PM to the Administrator led to another thread being spawned about the legality of open carry in California. This thread has been subsequently closed, due to the lack of self-moderation.
Arguments against open carry from pro-gunnersseem to fall into afew categories
It's all about attention/ego/phallus.
Maybe it is. As Americans we boast to the world of our freedoms even without realizing it. The world that opposes us despises our culture, government, status, the equality of women, equality of races, equality of religions, equality of sexual orientation,and the freedoms that we exercise without even thinking about them. If someone wants to bring attention to themselves or to a cause such as the freedom to arm themselves, what business is it of anyones to disparage them for their personal choice? Fighting for your rights is going to be something of a chest beating ego trip- in part because very few will stand up for themselves, let alone stand and fight on behalf of someone else's rights.
It's illegal (Even when it's not.)
The most contentious anti-OC arguments come from those who defend concealed carry and assert that OC is illegal even if there isn't a statutory prohibition. They will call it brandishing or disturbing the peace- both of which have some well-defined criteria that must be met in order to constitute a violation.
What I believe the motivation is here isn't any serious discussion of legality, but that of the power perceived when authorities hand overa piece of paper that grants them a special privilege that few have. Imagine that you've been authorized by law enforcement to carry a weapon concealed, and you run into someone who is open carrying, and what's more, they haven't been issued a special permit, or had to subject themselves to a background check, or been required to attend a mandated firearms course-- and they aren't required to. I suppose I'd be agitated too, after spending money on the training, the license, the specialized gear to hide your pistol, and all the inconvenience or discomfort associated with having to shove your concealed weapon out of view.
For me, it was this little piece of paper that has made me mad, not the free exercise of my inherent rights. I believe that if anyone should be angry at anything, that it should be about the process of relinquishing your rights to obtain a privilege that is revocable upon demand. By obtaining this little card I was denied my 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment rights.
It's tactically inferior (stupid).
I love this argument. So if it's so tactically stupid, why don't the policemen of the world conceal their duty piece? If open carry of a firearm makes them a bigger, more vulnerable target, why then isn't it reported nightlyon every localnews station that another cop was targeted for his visible firearm, was disarmed, and had his own weapon used against him? Well, it's because disarming someone with a pistol 1) isn't something most people including criminals want to try, and 2) it isn't nearly as easy to do as most would lead you to believe.
The other situation that the anti-OC will postulate is the robbery/stick up. You're standing in line at a store or bank and OC'ing. The criminal sees this and takes you out first. Yeah, that's exactly how it would go in the movies. In reality, a criminal who is robbing a bank has one objective in mind and that's the valuables.They want to get in there and out of there asap with no hangups no interference. The last thing they want to do is tangle with an armed citizen, an armed off-duty cop, an armed security guard, or an undercover cop. This is the reason most robbery cctvvideo is from quiet convenience stores after darkand not busy banks during business hours.
The criminals assess risks because they don't want to get caught- an openly armedperson is a serious obstacle to overcome, because they don't know if this armed person is a trained cop or simply an armed citizen. If all you are there for is the valuables, how are you going to leap from robbery to murder? The payoff would have to be pretty high to justify the added risk of putting your life on the line to take the armed person out of the picture.
The reasons I enjoy open carry?
1) I'm free.
2) I enjoy the same tactical access to my firearm as police do.
3) It's more comfortable.
4) It's a visual deterrent to would-be criminals.
5) It's a political statement that shows OC is acceptable, reasonable, and practical.
I discovered recently that OC makes for a highly contentious subject for debate. In attempting to learn more about California law, I thought I would ask on another forum that is not dedicated exclusively to open carry. The question I asked was intended to be a serious inquiry of what the law stated, but it quickly degenerated into a free for all flame throwing.
The question I asked was "Is there any statutory duty for a CCW licensee to conceal their weapon?" This and a brief PM to the Administrator led to another thread being spawned about the legality of open carry in California. This thread has been subsequently closed, due to the lack of self-moderation.
Arguments against open carry from pro-gunnersseem to fall into afew categories
It's all about attention/ego/phallus.
Maybe it is. As Americans we boast to the world of our freedoms even without realizing it. The world that opposes us despises our culture, government, status, the equality of women, equality of races, equality of religions, equality of sexual orientation,and the freedoms that we exercise without even thinking about them. If someone wants to bring attention to themselves or to a cause such as the freedom to arm themselves, what business is it of anyones to disparage them for their personal choice? Fighting for your rights is going to be something of a chest beating ego trip- in part because very few will stand up for themselves, let alone stand and fight on behalf of someone else's rights.
It's illegal (Even when it's not.)
The most contentious anti-OC arguments come from those who defend concealed carry and assert that OC is illegal even if there isn't a statutory prohibition. They will call it brandishing or disturbing the peace- both of which have some well-defined criteria that must be met in order to constitute a violation.
What I believe the motivation is here isn't any serious discussion of legality, but that of the power perceived when authorities hand overa piece of paper that grants them a special privilege that few have. Imagine that you've been authorized by law enforcement to carry a weapon concealed, and you run into someone who is open carrying, and what's more, they haven't been issued a special permit, or had to subject themselves to a background check, or been required to attend a mandated firearms course-- and they aren't required to. I suppose I'd be agitated too, after spending money on the training, the license, the specialized gear to hide your pistol, and all the inconvenience or discomfort associated with having to shove your concealed weapon out of view.
For me, it was this little piece of paper that has made me mad, not the free exercise of my inherent rights. I believe that if anyone should be angry at anything, that it should be about the process of relinquishing your rights to obtain a privilege that is revocable upon demand. By obtaining this little card I was denied my 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment rights.
It's tactically inferior (stupid).
I love this argument. So if it's so tactically stupid, why don't the policemen of the world conceal their duty piece? If open carry of a firearm makes them a bigger, more vulnerable target, why then isn't it reported nightlyon every localnews station that another cop was targeted for his visible firearm, was disarmed, and had his own weapon used against him? Well, it's because disarming someone with a pistol 1) isn't something most people including criminals want to try, and 2) it isn't nearly as easy to do as most would lead you to believe.
The other situation that the anti-OC will postulate is the robbery/stick up. You're standing in line at a store or bank and OC'ing. The criminal sees this and takes you out first. Yeah, that's exactly how it would go in the movies. In reality, a criminal who is robbing a bank has one objective in mind and that's the valuables.They want to get in there and out of there asap with no hangups no interference. The last thing they want to do is tangle with an armed citizen, an armed off-duty cop, an armed security guard, or an undercover cop. This is the reason most robbery cctvvideo is from quiet convenience stores after darkand not busy banks during business hours.
The criminals assess risks because they don't want to get caught- an openly armedperson is a serious obstacle to overcome, because they don't know if this armed person is a trained cop or simply an armed citizen. If all you are there for is the valuables, how are you going to leap from robbery to murder? The payoff would have to be pretty high to justify the added risk of putting your life on the line to take the armed person out of the picture.
The reasons I enjoy open carry?
1) I'm free.
2) I enjoy the same tactical access to my firearm as police do.
3) It's more comfortable.
4) It's a visual deterrent to would-be criminals.
5) It's a political statement that shows OC is acceptable, reasonable, and practical.
