Will there be a change from Concealed Carry to Open Carry?


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
December 29, 2010, 12:53 AM
.

If I'm correct, when the Constitution was written it pertained to Open Carry, as Concealed Carry was more for criminals.



So if we keep winning legal battles do you see the courts choosing Open Carry over Concealed Carry?




Do you think States would be allowed to decide on Open vs. Concealed Carry or would there would be Federal decision that all states would abide by?

.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will there be a change from Concealed Carry to Open Carry?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hiawatha
December 29, 2010, 01:29 AM
Arkansas is really weird about that. Getting a CCP is pretty easy, but if you have one and your weapon becomes visible, even accidentally, you can be in big trouble!

Caliper_RWVA
December 29, 2010, 02:55 AM
It is my understanding that right now there is no Federal law regarding either OC or CC, so the states are currently free to decide. CC may have been more associated with the criminal element at a certain time, but people both good and bad have been hiding firearms underneath various articles of clothing almost as long as there have been firearms and I don't see how the 2A would prevent CC. I'll wager most of the Founding Fathers understood discretion and why an honest man would choose to conceal a weapon ;). If we keep winning the right legal battles, I could see a Federal (probably through SCOTUS) requirement for some form of shall-issue CC permit to be made available in all states. Would rather be free like Az and not have to get a permit in order to exercise my rights though.

Geckgo
December 29, 2010, 03:02 AM
In louisiana, OC is legal statewide without a permit. I don't know if townships or parishes can overrule this or not, as I haven't read the state constitution in a while. But nobody open carries except the police. At least, not so many that you would ever notice venturing through. So, no, the feds don't chime in on OC or CC, it's up to the state.

AKPastor
December 29, 2010, 04:43 AM
OC and CC in Alaska without a permit. The only time I hear any grief is because some tourist gets scared by the sight of a gun. I don't know ho y'all can live like you do in some states.

SMITHWESS
December 29, 2010, 07:37 AM
"Constitutional carry" is the only thing that will satisfy me, in all states. But I think that will take some time. And that's a crying shame.

atlctyslkr
December 29, 2010, 10:44 AM
Eventually there will be some Fedearl Ruling that should/will clear all of this up but it may take some time. A National permit would be best, permits for all non-felons, no restrictions on posession at home.

piranha45
December 29, 2010, 10:55 AM
i was told by a senior that concealed-carry permits are more helpful to law enforcement, since a visible gun in concealed-carry laws warrants an investigation.

Allowing citizens to open-carry basically takes away the right of law enforcement to investigate whether a person is legally carrying a firearm or not. Apparently, biker-gangs waltzing about with their pistols are a problem in some areas, and giving them the option of open-carry weakens law enforcement's ability to keep tabs on whether they are lawfully carrying those weapons or not.

personally it still seems like open-carry should be the proper way; it does weaken law enforcement though...

sansone
December 29, 2010, 10:55 AM
OC and CC in Alaska without a permit. The only time I hear any grief is because some tourist gets scared by the sight of a gun. I don't know ho y'all can live like you do in some states.
here in FL we are pretty tolerant of firearms and tourism is a major cash-crop. The two don't mix well, tourists spotting a gun-grip for even a brief moment can wreck a theme park's day. On topic: open carry is not legal statewide. Some counties will ignore open carry but State Troopers enforce state laws so you can get in trouble. Even with a Conceal permit you are not permitted to expose any part of the gun

rocky1
December 29, 2010, 10:57 AM
Don't see it ever happening...

1.) There were not nearly as many people in the country at the time the constitution was written.

2.) There were not nearly as many reporters in the country at the time the constitution was written.

3.) There were not nearly as many no-minded busy bodies that thought they knew more about how you should conduct your life than you could ever possibly know in the country at the time the constitution was written. (Mostly because they all got shot!)

Dreamcast270mhz
December 29, 2010, 11:27 AM
Open carry still gives law enforcement the right to investigate, but it makes it legal, if you own the gun you carry and such, to display it openly, something that I have littel issue with. I wish VA would allow open carry, would allow people I know to avoid being harassed by delinquents. I mean, who would approach a person carrying a shotgun with intent to hurt?

NavyLCDR
December 29, 2010, 11:31 AM
Allowing citizens to open-carry basically takes away the right of law enforcement to investigate whether a person is legally carrying a firearm or not

Excuse me?!? Where does this "right" of law enforcement to investigate whether a person is legally carrying a firearm or not come from?

Let me provide an example. You are sitting in McDonald's eating lunch with two children. Do you think LEO has the "right" to come up to you, question you as to whether those children are yours or not, and produce identification for you and your kids to prove you are lawfully in possession of those kids?!? Kidnapping is a crime you know, and LEO walking into McDonald's and seeing you eating lunch with two kids has no idea whether those kids are yours or not, or whether you are a kidnapper or not.

Why are firearms any different?

Apparently, biker-gangs waltzing about with their pistols are a problem in some areas, and giving them the option of open-carry weakens law enforcement's ability to keep tabs on whether they are lawfully carrying those weapons or not.

Put yourself in the cops shoes for a moment. Which would you rather see, a "biker-gang" walking down the street with no visible weapons and have to guess if they are armed or not; or would you rather see a "biker-gang" walking down the street with pistols clearly worn out in the open in holsters on their belts? Would you rather KNOW where the guns are, or would you rather GUESS where the guns are?!?

personally it still seems like open-carry should be the proper way; it does weaken law enforcement though..

As stated above, open carry in no way weakens law enforcement, it strengthens law enforcement. A cop has no way of knowing where a gun is concealed until he finds it in a search, or it is probably too late. With open carry, the cop knows who is armed and where the gun is. If open carry is legal, such as in Washington, and a cop sees a person wearing a gun in a holster on his belt, that cop can be pretty dang certain the person carrying the gun is not a criminal because why in the world would a criminal want to carry a gun out in the open for all to see? The criminal is more than likely to hide their gun to avoid arousing suspicion.

And back to this "right" of LEO to check me out because I am wearing a gun. Ever heard of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution? The 4th amendment says that LEO has no right to "check me out" unless they have suspicion that I am committing a crime. So maybe you would like to see carrying a firearm automatically be classified as suspicious activity? Ummm.... NO THANK YOU!

In Washington state, for instance, the gun on my belt in a holster openly carried cannot be treated any differently then a cell phone on my belt in a holster. Both are equally legal to carry without a license, except in a few specifically limited areas clearly defined in state law (RCW 9.41.300). LEO has no "right" to check me out because I am carrying a firearm in a lawful manner than if I am carrying a cell phone in a lawful manner. And that does nothing to weaken LEO's ability to enforce the law.

Open carry still gives law enforcement the right to investigate, but it makes it legal, if you own the gun you carry and such, to display it openly, something that I have littel issue with. I wish VA would allow open carry, would allow people I know to avoid being harassed by delinquents. I mean, who would approach a person carrying a shotgun with intent to hurt?

LEO's have a right to investigate CRIME, and suspicion of a CRIME being committed. They have no "right" to investigate the carrying of firearms, absent other suspicion of an actual crime being committed, unless carrying that firearm is a crime by itself. You wish VA would allow open carry? Really?!? Anybody legal to possess a firearm in Virginia is legal to open carry that firearm in Virginia with no license required including the open carrying of a handgun at age 18 and above!

http://www.opencarry.org/va.html

I don't understand why "pro-2A" and "pro-gun" people would think that carrying a firearm warrants LEO's attention in any way, let alone gives LEO the "right" to investigate the carrying of that firearm.

zoom6zoom
December 29, 2010, 11:38 AM
I wish VA would allow open carry
Huh? Virginia has had open carry, no permit required, for quite a while. There is a very active OC community. Check out the Virginia subforum at opencarry.org. Very few hassles anymore, the cops have pretty much been trained that it's legal.

texas bulldog
December 29, 2010, 11:38 AM
I wish VA would allow open carry

Um...I'm pretty sure it does.


EDIT: Dang, zoom6zoom just beat me to it.

Gouranga
December 29, 2010, 11:44 AM
personally it still seems like open-carry should be the proper way; it does weaken law enforcement though

You know I carry a pocket knife hooked to my front pocket every where I go. It is obvious I have it. No cop has ever stopped me to ask me if I am the lawful owner of the knife.

Should the police be stopping me all the time to make sure my car is not stolen? How about my house? They have no idea if I am the legal owner or if i have killed the legal owner and buried them in the back yard.

If I am not committing a crime or threatening anyone (I mean actually threatening not just because some raging anti gets the shivers seeing my holstered weapon) it is not business of the police what I am doing where I am going, or whether anything on my person is mine, borrowed, or stolen.

I don't think it is the gov't concern how or if I am carrying a weapon. OC or CC, I am a law abiding citizen. In 36 years, including traffic violations, I can count on a single hand the number of times I have been charged with breaking the law (2 speeding tickets, 1 failure to follow established routes) and 1 of those 3 was thrown out cause it was BS. So why should I be harassed by any LEO?

BBQLS1
December 29, 2010, 12:06 PM
Where does the constitution imply anything on open or concealed carry?

GEM
December 29, 2010, 01:32 PM
It would be the debate on what 'bear' means. Now, where's my popcorn to watch this. ;)

Heller and McDonald didn't speak to that and, of course, I am a constitutional expert - being on the Internet.

Frank Ettin
December 29, 2010, 01:44 PM
If I'm correct, when the Constitution was written it pertained to Open Carry, as Concealed Carry was more for criminals....I can't imagine what gave you that idea.

...if we keep winning legal battles do you see the courts choosing Open Carry over Concealed Carry?I sure hope not. Open carry could be a serious nuisance in lousy weather. I wouldn't want to be limited to open carry when it gets cold or when it rains.

DCR
December 29, 2010, 03:54 PM
+1 NavyLT.

I'd only add that the government and LEO's don't have "rights" - they have authority to engage in investigations, and only under the circumstances you outlined pursuant to the 4th Amendment. Citizens have rights.

hiawatha
December 29, 2010, 11:45 PM
Geckgo, LA is the one state whose CC permits are not recognized in AR. I'm told that's because of the process for obtaining a CC permit in LA. As far as AR knows, LA has no training requirement, and LEO has complete discretion on issuing CCs with no guidelines. True?

hickorynut
December 30, 2010, 01:00 AM
Here in IL. we are still trying to regain our right to carry in any form. With our recently elected govener it doesn't look good for another four years.:fire::fire:

orionengnr
December 30, 2010, 01:20 AM
"Constitutional carry" is the only thing that will satisfy me, in all states. But I think that will take some time. And that's a crying shame.
Baby steps...we'll get there. As long as we stick together. :)

Dean1818
December 30, 2010, 10:47 AM
1) Vote
2) See Number 1... repeat
3) Be a VERY SAFE and responsible gun owners
3) Let your voice be heard (In an appropriate manner)

The kids are taught today that the constitution is a "LIVING" document
When you hear that... speak up LOUDLY...... thats codeword for CHANGABLE

For me. I live in the neighborhood of a bigger city and CC suits me just fine.

If I lived in the country, where guns are not a "fearful" thing I think OC would be ok.

My problem is with where most of the voting public lives... In the CITY

Where they are brainwashed by their liberal teachers and media that ALL GUNS ARE BAD.

I have had people tell me that when they OC in a public place in the city (Not here in Texas of course) that NO ONE WAS ALARMED...... I cant read minds, but I know enough people that are EXTREMELY nervous when they see them out or in the open
unless its an LE.

This VOTING populace is very much an out-of-sight, out-of-mind type.

The recent supreme court ruling on Chicago guns was ONLY 5-4.....its not time to get
overconfident

I just hope that none of the current conservative judges decide to retire....... we would have HUGE problems

Caliper_RWVA
December 30, 2010, 12:40 PM
Allowing citizens to open-carry basically takes away the right of law enforcement to investigate whether a person is legally carrying a firearm or not.

Agree with the above: OC does not give Police the authority to investigate you just because you have a gun.

From a recent MSP (Michigan State Patrol) legal update:

Officers are reminded that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Carrying a non-concealed firearm is generally legal. Officers may engage in a consensual encounter with a person carrying a non-concealed pistol; however, in order to stop a citizen, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. For example, officers may not stop a person on the mere possibility the person may be carrying an unregistered pistol. Officers must possess facts rising to the level of reasonable suspicion to believe the person is carrying an unregistered pistol.

AL Ranger
December 30, 2010, 04:43 PM
Currently, according to OCDO, there are 43 states that have some sort of Open Carry. The following states: TX, AR, FL, SC and OK are currently working to get OC legal in their states. Some states, like TN, require a license and then you decide whether to OC or CC. Here in AL, you can OC with no license required but you need your CCW to carry in a vehicle or concealed on your person. Laws vary widely as to how and when you can OC.

LemmyCaution
December 30, 2010, 05:07 PM
The kids are taught today that the constitution is a "LIVING" document
When you hear that... speak up LOUDLY...... thats codeword for CHANGABLE

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the Constitution is a changeable document. It says so right there in Article V (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html). That's what the word 'amend' means. To change.

It would probably be best if we stopped believing that the Constitution is a stone tablet handed down from God, and realized that it is a political document that defines a constitutional republic that follows basic rules of democracy. You may believe the country should be run one way, other citizens may believe otherwise. There is a process for changing the Constitution.

The Constitution must be followed as written until amended otherwise. That's where our efforts will best pay off- protesting and filing suit when the Constitution is not followed. The courts are the venue and the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. Much as one might blather about 'judicial activism,' it is entirely the judiciary's place and purpose to interpret the Constitution, even when it means they find against what one might wish it to mean.

Ranting and raving as if your political adversaries were blaspheming your faith is going to get little respect. It's a political process, not a religious crusade.

Back on topic:

As a resident of VT, I rarely consider the difference between open and concealed carry. There is no constructive legal difference. The only deference I ever give the subject is that I will conceal a firearm if carrying it openly would make a situation extremely socially awkward. I cover up if I encounter parents of my son's schoolmates whom I know to be anti-gun, just as I wear a suit to the company holiday party. I may not be comfortable in a suit, but I do it anyway, because there is no point in needlessly giving offense to others. Concealing my firearm affects me little, but I see little point in making others afraid, particularly if it closes them off to further rational dialogue on the subject.

If what we do here in VT is to be called Constitutional carry, I'm all for it. Whether to conceal or not should be left entirely up to the individual in his circumstances at any moment.

driftrider
December 30, 2010, 06:44 PM
Until Saturday, Iowa's law prohibits open carry without a valid Permit to Carry Weapons. issued by your local Sheriff. Currently, a PCW allows both open and concealed carry of firearms as well as items classified under Iowa law as "Dangerous Weapons" (e.g. switchblades). However, also under the current law, the Sheriff could arbitrarily restrict the scope of the permit however he say fit, including limiting the type of weapon it's valid for (e.g. handguns only, concealed only, etc...).

The great news is that Iowa passed a new "shall issue" law which not only makes the standards for issue uniform, but also restricts the issuer (still the local Sheriff for residents) from restricting the permit. Thus open and concealed carry is equally legal in Iowa, but requires a PCW.

I, personally, intend to carry concealed. I simply don't feel like drawing undue attention to myself. And, while there is nothing wrong with open carry per se, it's the reactions of others I'm concerned about. The good thing about Iowa's oc/cc law is that there is no legal worry about printing or accidentally exposing ones weapon like there is in some other ccw only states.

Owen Sparks
December 30, 2010, 06:53 PM
Authorities often see you as part of a group (the general public) and you are concidered no better than the least member of that group. The weakest link in the chain so to speak. Therefore if some people are too stupid to run around loose with a holstered firearm, then NOBODY can carry a pistol because of what they MIGHT do. This presupposes guilt based on the potential for a crime rather than any actual criminal action. This is the same exact formula as racism where all members of a group are seen as no better than the worst examples and are treated accordingly.

NavyLCDR
December 30, 2010, 09:33 PM
And, while there is nothing wrong with open carry per se, it's the reactions of others I'm concerned about.

Can I ask if you could propose a way that those reactions are ever going to change if those "reactive" people never see a normal American going about normal everyday business with a gun on their belt for self protection?

driftrider
December 30, 2010, 09:56 PM
Can I ask if you could propose a way that those reactions are ever going to change if those "reactive" people never see a normal American going about normal everyday business with a gun on their belt for self protection?

You do have a point.

I guess I just don't want to deal with the fallout from such activism. I simply don't have the time, patience or tact to deal with unnessary adversarial confrontations with frightened soccer moms, mall rent-a-cops, store managers/employees, or overzealous and uninformed LEO's, all giving me a hard time for doing something that is perfectly legal. I don't feel like being kicked out of stores and restaurants because a frightened, braindead patron freaks out at the sight of my sidearm and complains to a spineless, braindead manager who feels compelled to make a big scene because I'm perceived as a threat. I'm not the activist type, beyond the occasionally letter to a legislator. I don't need the hassle, I simply want to go about my business in peace, with my weapon there to end commotions, not start them.

Secondly, I feel that concealed carry offers a net tactical advantage should an incident erupt, especially if I'm not the direct target of the assailant (like in the cast of an armed robbery where I am a patron in the store being robbed).

Arkyhog
January 2, 2011, 01:29 AM
Geckgo, LA is the one state whose CC permits are not recognized in AR. I'm told that's because of the process for obtaining a CC permit in LA. As far as AR knows, LA has no training requirement, and LEO has complete discretion on issuing CCs with no guidelines. True?
Hiawatha, Arkansas does reciprocate completely with Louisiana on CHCL (Concealed Carry Handgun Law). You can check out this map (http://arkansascarry.com/information/reciprocity-maps.html) on the Arkansas Carry website (http://www.ArkansasCarry.com) for information on all the states Arkansas reciprocates with (Iowa will be updated soon, as that state had a recent change).

Please visit the Arkansas Carry website and join our group. We have been working for the last two years to push open carry in Arkansas (so you won't lose your CHCL if you accidentally expose your firearm). We are also pushing for less restrictive concealed carry laws in Arkansas, such as carry in municipal parks, choice for churches on carry or not, etc...

Please contact me personally, if you need more information.

Steve Jones
Chairman - Arkansas Carry
www.ArkansasCarry.com
Steve.Jones@ArkansasCarry.com

wishin
January 2, 2011, 02:25 PM
I'm hopeful that the law of the land will allow both concealed or open carry as our State law is in Georgia.
If a strict interpretation had to be made for the entire country, I'd argue that open carry is more practical. As we all know, criminals will carry anyway so in my opinion it would be more advantageous to law enforcement if the BG had it plain view (some would), and anyone caught carrying concealed would be presumed to be up to no good! Talk about situational awareness....:rolleyes:

NavyLCDR
January 2, 2011, 02:52 PM
I'm hopeful that the law of the land will allow both concealed or open carry as our State law is in Georgia

Honestly, I hope not. In Georgia, one must obtain a license to open carry or concealed carry. Neither is a right in Georgia - both are privileges bestowed only upon persons willing to pay for the government's permission to do so.

wishin
January 2, 2011, 03:13 PM
Honestly, I hope not. In Georgia, one must obtain a license to open carry or concealed carry. Neither is a right in Georgia - both are privileges bestowed only upon persons willing to pay for the government's permission to do so.

NavyLT, you're right! Like a reporter, you took my comment out of context.:mad:

Cosmoline
January 2, 2011, 03:28 PM
If I'm correct, when the Constitution was written it pertained to Open Carry, as Concealed Carry was more for criminals.

This is not correct at all. I think you are conflating various historical periods. The anti-ccw bias came into play much later, along with the advent of anti-concealed carry laws. The first anti-ccw laws emerged in the slave states and was directly related to fears of slave revolt. These were expanded upon in the Jim Crow south as fears became even more intense. Eventually the laws migrated north--not coincidentally with the influx of black workers from the south.

During the revolutionary era when the Constitution was drafted, no such laws existed. There were in fact many concealable flintlock pieces around during the 18th century, often ornate ones. It was NOT seen as shady for a traveling gentleman to carry such weapons. In those times there was usually no formal law enforcement at all beyond the very limited boundaries of a town or city.

NavyLCDR
January 2, 2011, 03:40 PM
NavyLT, you're right! Like a reporter, you took my comment out of context.

Exactly what did I take out of context? Georgia law allows for neither open carry nor concealed carry (with exceptions of course) without a license. That is not the solution that I would like the "law of the land" to be.

K-Rod
January 2, 2011, 04:06 PM
IMO, Driftrider nailed it right between the eyes!!

Please school this red-neck hick. Other than it being you lawful "Right", why do you feel it neccessary to OC over CC?...........Now if your sitting there trying hard to think of another reason other than it's your "Right", please tell me what is the point? Why bring that unwanted attention upon yourself? Why do you feel it's neccesary to not "Care" if when you OC it may frieghten someone? Not everyone is firearm tolerant. Some people are very scared of the sight of a firearm. Why would a person that is concerned about their gun rights, not consider this when OC? Is it so much harder to CC? If the reason you OC is because of easier access to said firearm, you are not trained or have not trained. There is no reason IMO to OC. Why instill fear? Why are you "Ok" with scaring people when CC is just as protective?

I believe it's more of a moral question than anything.

rondog
January 2, 2011, 04:20 PM
In MY own jaded opinion, I don't think we'll ever see a NATIONAL carry law, either CCW or OC. Far too many politicians and moonbats standing in the way. It would be nice, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. I'm amazed we still have the gun freedoms that we do still have. Look at nearly every other country in the world and their gun laws. Hell, in Great Britain you can't even defend yourself against a criminal in your own home with anything deadlier than a stick. And God help you if you hurt him with that stick.

wishin
January 2, 2011, 06:00 PM
NavyLT

You chose to read into my post that I'm for firearms licensing, which I'm not.

Insofar as you're being overly simplistic on the issue, let me add that when the flames are roaring, you smell smoke and someone in the crowd shouts "fire", all the rhetoric, posturing and denial that the building was made to survive all calamities will not change the fact that it caught fire. Our Constitutional RKBA recently hinged on just one vote in the SCOTUS. The building has been on fire for decades. Be realisitic. We must accept the fact that gun laws and some regulation will not go away. I think you're too smart to believe otherwise. What we can hope and work towards through the NRA, SAF and others is to keep what restrictions we can't do anything about reasonable. It's hard to swallow, but it is what it is.

Mind you, I'm not debating what the Founders intended, nor am I getting drawn into further debate on what I've said here. What I'm stating is fact. And, in case you didn't read me right, gun regulation is here to stay. To think otherwise is delusional.

If a national gun law were passed, I will bet the farm that the law of the land would not be Constitutional carry with no limitations.

NavyLCDR
January 2, 2011, 06:01 PM
K-Rod,

I'll be happy to school a red-neck hick. Open carry has the possibility of deterring a crime from starting. The majority of felons, when interviewed, admit that they would not attack a target known to be armed. How are they going to know you are armed if the gun is concealed? I would rather deter the crime from starting, rather than defend against it after it has started. Why should I give up that dterrent value because a soccer mom is afraid of the object on my belt?

I don't want to put my family through the trauma of a self defense shooting. I would rather deter the criminal to start with.

In addition, K-Rod, how do you propose that those people that run screaming in terror at the sight of a gun are ever going to get over their fear of inanimate objects if they don't see normal Americans carrying guns in normal everyday life doing normal things that normal Americans do? We are never going to show them that it is normal for an American to have the means available to defend themselves if we, as the pro-gun crowd, treat guns as something evil that need to be hidden away from public view.

K-Rod
January 2, 2011, 10:22 PM
NavyLT

though I agree with what you are saying consider this,

Example 1). You & your wife/family are on a family outing. You all stop at a C-store for fuel, snacks etc. Your attention is on your kids asking if they can get "X" candy bar. In walks two armed BG to rob the place. One BG sees you have a weapon becuase you OC. Your a threat & let's go a blast from his 12ga at you at short range before you even realize what's happening. You & your child are hit. Threat eliminated.

Example 2). You had to work late & walking to your car. Your on your cell talking to the wife to let her know to re-heat dinner your on your way. As your walking down the street the two BG watching you notice you have a gun. You were a target for money gain before, now your a target for the gain of your gun as well. Instead of walking up & asking you for lite for their smokes & then sucker punch you grab your wallet & run, they just sneek up & bash the back of your head in with a pipe. Now your not a threat & another BG is armed.

Though I realize these are rare examples I also find it rare that would-be attacker/felon would care if he knew you had a gun because you OP, if he has a gun as well. I venture to believe the felons you spoke of that wouldn't attack a target because they knew the target had a gun, are the felons that are the opportunists. I don't believe the armed felons you care much at all because you would be on the ground before you knew what was happening. As the saying goes, "Locks are for honest people".

Furthermore IMO the I'd say the ones that OC are in fact the ones that for whatever reason can't CC. Laws of different states, no CCW etc. My point of my previous post was if you can in fact or do have the RIGHT to CC, Why would you want that unwanted attention on you for OC? Weather that unwanted attention comes in the form of said soccer mom, BG that also has a gun & is not affraid of the fact you do.

It seems to me that anyone that has a CCW & still chooses to OC, is doing it for the intimidation factor or as one other member on THR said when asked by a freind why he carries, "Because I have a small wiener"

why be percieved as a threat, if you don't have too?


As to your addition, people fear what they don't understand. It's our duty as gun owners to educate, not intimadate. You gain no respect & you fail to educate if you don't care about someones fear & just say "I don't care if your affraid. It's my right so deal with it".

Furthermore Sir you are WAY off base if you assume that I think firearms are evil! I have many firearms & I CC only with a CCW. My wife comes from a family of people that were terrified of firearms because a family member was killed by one. I educated, I was patient, I didn't force & now she has a CCW as well as most of her family. The more you force to push forward, the further behind you will get Sir.

NavyLCDR
January 2, 2011, 11:16 PM
K-Rod,

I don't open carry for attention. Being involved in a very active group of open carriers (www.opencarry.org), I can tell you that 99% of us don't open carry for the attention. We open carry because we have determined, for ourselves, through factual research, that open carry deters crime a majority of the time if we are being evaluated as a target and we would rather deter crime than defend ourselves against a criminal act once it has begun. The examples that you mentioned in your post simply have not come true in reality. Please provide us with examples if you do know of any time in reality that they have happened.

Secondly, we open carry as an example to others that it is acceptable, legal, and normal for an American to possess and carry a gun for self protection.

Why would a criminal choose to attack a target that is known to be armed and risk either drawing more attention to themselves in a shootout or risk getting killed when they could wait two minutes for the guy with the gun to leave or go down the street one block and have their pick of targets that are not apparently armed? Why would a criminal attack a person carrying a gun to obtain that gun when it would be much easier to buy a gun off the street with money they take from unarmed targets? Even hardened and armed criminals would be smart enough to pick an easy target over a target that visibly has the means available to kill them.

Finally, if the criminal does not see the gun, or does choose to attack anyway, a firearm carried openly is easier and quicker to access. It is NOT a matter of training, as some have claimed - it is a matter of practicality and common sense. A firearm that only has be removed from a holster is quicker to get to than a person who has to first uncover that firearm from concealment.

I don't care if a person chooses to open or conceal carry. It's their choice to make. But I won't make statements that diminish a person's choice of carrying method to just "seeking attention" and scaring soccer mom's.

JVaughn
January 2, 2011, 11:18 PM
K-Rod makes a good point - there is no need to choose to intimidate people in whatever situation if you don't have to. I live in an OC / CC state and have never chosen to carry open in public. That being said, I believe that NavyLT was not suggesting that people should carry open; but that the government doesn't have the right to make that choice for us. I say if he or anyone else chooses to OC - that is their right and not the right of the government to regulate.

NavyLT - I'm with you 100%
"Shall not be infringed" means at all

General Geoff
January 2, 2011, 11:19 PM
I venture to believe the felons you spoke of that wouldn't attack a target because they knew the target had a gun, are the felons that are the opportunists. I don't believe the armed felons you care much at all because you would be on the ground before you knew what was happening. As the saying goes, "Locks are for honest people".

Career criminals are opportunists. Given the choice, they will always attack the unarmed target. They are looking for easy victims, not people who might open fire on them.

JVaughn
January 2, 2011, 11:22 PM
Secondly, we open carry as an example to others that it is acceptable, legal, and normal for an American to possess and carry a gun for self protection.

I agree on this point too. It used to be normal to see a man carrying a rifle down the road - you didn't think "criminal," you thought "hunter." A huge problem with this country today is the fact that uneducated people are afraid of guns. I never considered open carry as a means to try to change this - intriguing concept. I will have to look into your organization.

NavyLCDR
January 2, 2011, 11:51 PM
Career criminals are opportunists. Given the choice, they will always attack the unarmed target. They are looking for easy victims, not people who might open fire on them.

Which is exactly why they ARE career criminals! They don't make dumb decisions.

hans471
January 3, 2011, 01:30 AM
My opinions are, well, my opinions. I believe in the Second Amendment and support the efforts of all sane, law abiding Americans to maintain their right to own and lawfully use firearms. God knows I own more than my fair share! I do have a problem with this whole open carry thing however.

First, I am a CCDW permit holder in Kentucky. For those of you in other places, that is Concealed Carry Deadly Weapon. Here in Kentucky we have very friendly firearms and self protection laws. Common sense stuff for law abiding citizens. OC is legal here. While I support the right of a individual to self protection I also feel a responsibility to the general public. Perhaps it was my thirty years of being a teacher that makes me consider everyone's feelings and how best to compromise.

Like it or not many Americans (and most people around the world) when they see a person with a firearm on their side feel uneasy. I can't blame them for that, I have a wife that way. Some of her girlfriend are the same way. I understand, first hand, the thoughts they have on this. But, these same people feel comfortable, even safer, knowing I have a CCDW and if need be could protect them.

It is a personal thing with them and many others that they are uneasy with seeing firearms. Yet, when the firearm is out of sight the problem goes away. You will NOT re-educate these people by flashing guns at them, you will only make the situation worse. Fact is, if you constantly put public guns in front of them they would be far more likely to become anti-gun.

Sure, to us that seems silly. Read the comments here and you get this thing of "do it more and make them more comfortable as they get use to it" (wrong!) or, "its my right I don't care what they think" (Not the best way to win anyone's support!)

So, CC became the law in most places for this reason. It does not "scare" the populace. At the same time it allows us to protect ourselves, and it leaves the bad guys guessing which one of us is armed.

Some have made arguments that OC scares off the bad guys. Well, maybe. But the other side of that is that the bad guys now know where to get a nice new gun. Look at how many times bad guys have taken he guns away from police officers. Face it, if a bad guy (and his buddies) want your OC gun, they CAN take it away from you. You have just stuck it out in their face and shown them where to get it. If you think you are Superman and can outwit and overcome a group of experienced bad guys half your age and working as a team, you need a reality check.

So, I say, keep it out of sight, keep them guessing. To go with this, we don't need overly strict laws that nail us if someone just catches a glimpse of our piece showing. Again, here in Kentucky we are reasonable about that.

My best experience with CC perceptions came at a museum where I was working. We had a special meeting about what to do if a "shooter" was in the building. This was after the incident in DC where the man shot the guard and made his way inside. A police officer who specialized in this area came in and gave a very informative presentation on mass shootings. I could write a lot about that, but that is for another day. Anyway, the talk was about how to spot a possible shooter. Long coat, lumps in clothing, etc. trying to hide a firearm.

One of our security guards brought up that there might already be armed people in the building (to the shock of some in the group) as we had CCDW in Kentucky. He then went on to say that these were good, law abiding citizens who would actually an asset in a shooting situation. But the best part was when he told them not to worry, if they were truly CCDW permit holders the staff would never know it when they came in as, "their weapons would be out of sight". His point was, a good CCDW person would not want to alarm you as to their weapon yet would be there is trouble reared its ugly head.

I know there are many here who will argue that they have a God given and constitutional right to carry a weapon. I don't disagree. But I will say, that for me and many others, we are better off from a public relations standpoint if we just keep it handy but out of sight. It just makes people feel better and wins us more support in the court of public opinion. And me, I don't want to advertise to all the young punks out there that I have a nice, well maintained firearm on my side that they can help themselves to. Some crazy out there would just put a bullet in the back of your head and take it from you if they wanted it. Why show them ahead of time what you have worth taking?

Like I said at the beginning, this is my opinion and I know some will agree and others disagree.

General Geoff
January 3, 2011, 02:28 AM
It is a personal thing with them and many others that they are uneasy with seeing firearms. Yet, when the firearm is out of sight the problem goes away. You will NOT re-educate these people by flashing guns at them, you will only make the situation worse. Fact is, if you constantly put public guns in front of them they would be far more likely to become anti-gun.
These same people typically have zero issues with seeing police officers and their openly carried sidearms. I don't see why normal people would incite a different response.

But I will say, that for me and many others, we are better off from a public relations standpoint if we just keep it handy but out of sight.
Sounds like you'd be in favor of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy too. Keeping guns hidden does nothing for public relations.

And me, I don't want to advertise to all the young punks out there that I have a nice, well maintained firearm on my side that they can help themselves to. Some crazy out there would just put a bullet in the back of your head and take it from you if they wanted it.
You make it sound as if an open carrier is just a manikin with a gun strapped to it. A criminal would have to be certified crazy to attempt to jump an openly armed and alert individual.

Why show them ahead of time what you have worth taking?
Why wear an expensive watch? Why drive a nice car? Why wear a tailored suit? It's just showing that you have money and you will be targeted because of it.

I will not hide my sidearm in fear of miscreants who might foolishly try to take it from me.



ETA: In my years of carrying openly in a major metropolitan area, I can say that the vast majority of people don't even notice my sidearm. Out of those who do, most don't even give me a second glance, and the remainder almost always just nod, a few have struck up a conversation with me regarding guns and/or gun rights, and not one private citizen has come up to me telling me I should be concealing or that I shouldn't be carrying. I have had one police encounter where a local officer asked me to conceal, and I politely declined. He left me alone after that, and I haven't had another encounter since (this was about two years ago). In other words, open carry simply isn't the public relations nightmare that you make it out to be. People by & large don't care.

NavyLCDR
January 3, 2011, 02:45 AM
Everything the good General said above, especially his "ETA", plus....

Why show them ahead of time what you have worth taking?

More accurately would be, "Is what I have worth dying for?"

Frank Ettin
January 3, 2011, 01:32 PM
...In my years of carrying openly in a major metropolitan area, I can say that the vast majority of people don't even notice my sidearm. ... not one private citizen has come up to me telling me I should be concealing or that I shouldn't be carrying. ...open carry simply isn't the public relations nightmare that you make it out to be. People by & large don't care. How do you really know that it's not a public relations nightmare? How do you really know that people don't care? You really don't.

Do you know that people aren't noticing your sidearm? The thing is that most folks have been taught that it's not polite to appear to notice things about other people on the street. Didn't your mother tell you that it's not polite to stare?

And of course no one is going to complain to you about your gun. You're armed. No one, especially someone who is afraid of guns, is going to risk provoking a confrontation.

The truth is that unless you can read minds, which I doubt you can, you have no idea what people are thinking about you and your gun. You're just guessing.

General Geoff
January 3, 2011, 01:36 PM
I don't care what people are thinking about me or my gun. They are entitled to their opinions.

I am merely going off my observations as an alert individual. Body language is a subtle thing, and people who notice something upsetting to them usually react in some way. So unless the vast majority of folks are highly trained con artists, my observation is that they either don't notice or don't care.

Frank Ettin
January 3, 2011, 01:41 PM
...I am merely going off my observations as an alert individual. Body language is a subtle thing, and people who notice something upsetting to them usually react in some way...Since I have no way to gauge your powers of observation or your ability to read the subtle body language of strangers, I have no reason to credit your opinion.

General Geoff
January 3, 2011, 01:44 PM
And I have no reason to believe that open carry is a public relations nightmare. If it were, there would be an outcry to ban or tightly regulate it; there is none, at least not in Pennsylvania.

NavyLCDR
January 3, 2011, 02:27 PM
If we aren't mind readers, and 99% of the people we open carriers see everyday have no visible reactions to our guns, then where does the assumption come from that they are afraid of guns, against open carry, or have any negative feelings at all about it? People on this thread are saying to be "considerate" and conceal. Considerate to who, is what I would ask.

Frank Ettin
January 3, 2011, 03:15 PM
And I have no reason to believe that open carry is a public relations nightmare...Except --

[1] See post 6 regarding the history of the loss in Florida of the right to openly carry in this thread on another forum: http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?46-Open-Carry-in-Florida&p=201#post201.

[2] In California, enough folks were sufficiently upset by some Unloaded Open Carry demonstrations to prompt a bill outlawing the practice to be introduced. The bill failed passage by only one vote in the State Senate (it handily passed in the Assembly).

[3] There are plenty of examples of rights being lost because enough folks didn't like the ways in which they were being exercised. Over the years, in many communities, we have seen many zoning and other laws adopted restricting how you can use your own property. In some places you may not work on your car in your own driveway in view of the public street. In some places you must get design approval of remodeling or landscaping visible to the public. In some communities, you may not park or store large vehicles like boats on trailers or RVs on your property so as to be visible to the public. These sorts of restrictions have in large part been the result of strong enough public sentiment that some things previously lawfully done by private parties on their own land were unseemly or unattractive.

If we aren't mind readers, and 99% of the people we open carriers see everyday have no visible reactions to our guns, then where does the assumption come from that they are afraid of guns, against open carry, or have any negative feelings at all about it?...I never made that assumption. I pointed out that you can't assume the opposite.

Steve Raacke
January 3, 2011, 03:55 PM
In louisiana, OC is legal statewide without a permit. I don't know if townships or parishes can overrule this or not, as I haven't read the state constitution in a while. But nobody open carries except the police. At least, not so many that you would ever notice venturing through. So, no, the feds don't chime in on OC or CC, it's up to the state.
Regarding wether towns or Parishs can override - look up RS 40:1796 Concerning Preemption of State Law - Basically this says laws passed before July 15th, 1985 are valid.
The part of the State Constitution you want to reference is-
The LA State Constitution - Article 1, 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." You are wrong that nobody Open Carries. There are many of us who Open Carry regularly. The Open Carry group in La is LOCAL- Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League. Learn more about us at http://www.laopencarry.org/index.php .
The LOCAL Mission
The mission of the Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League (LOCAL) is to support, defend and promote the fact that the open carry of firearms is a legal choice in Louisiana. We seek to accomplish this goal by educating the public about the legality of open carry in Louisiana, through the existence of the website itself, by producing and distributing literature, organizing open carry awareness campaigns & events, and by actively petitioning our representatives and legislators.

Additionally, we seek to be a conduit for personal involvement by interested citizens and strongly promote and encourage citizens to become active in their communities, as well as in state-level politics. Another tool to help accomplish this mission is our web forum, within which citizens can discuss all aspects of their right to open carry.



Steve,
Founding Member/Secretary
La Open Carry Awareness League

NavyLCDR
January 3, 2011, 04:02 PM
That's funny, fiddletown. According to your point #3 above, if we want to keep our rights, we better not exercise them, because if we exercise our rights they will be taken away!

Steve Raacke
January 3, 2011, 04:06 PM
Geckgo, LA is the one state whose CC permits are not recognized in AR. I'm told that's because of the process for obtaining a CC permit in LA. As far as AR knows, LA has no training requirement, and LEO has complete discretion on issuing CCs with no guidelines. True? False. The LA CHP requirements are quite strict and include a minimum of 9 hours of class time to include range time. La is a Shall Issue State. Classes average ~$100. The permit itself costs $125 for a 5 year permit. Then you have fingerprinting ($10 at LSP HQ), passport style photos, notary fees, and about a 2 month wait for the back ground check. Additional fees if you have not been a La resident for the past 10 years. No felons or domestic violance misdemeanors. Been on anti depresants prescribed by a doctor? More paperwork to be signed off on by your doc. Been divorced? More paperwork. If you manage to jump though all of the hoops the La State Police must issue the permit. When the permit expires in 5 years, back to class, more paperwork to be notorized and so on... Many simply decide it's not worth the hassle and Open Carry instead.

Frank Ettin
January 3, 2011, 04:17 PM
That's funny, fiddletown. According to your point #3 above, if we want to keep our rights, we better not exercise them, because if we exercise our rights they will be taken away! Yes, it is funny. Nonetheless, it appears historically that can be the case.

rondog
January 3, 2011, 04:17 PM
Questions for the Open Carriers - because I'm just curious....

How many times have you been "talked to" by LEO's because of OC?

How many of those times were initiated by the LEO, and how many times were initiated by a "man with a gun" call by a citizen?

Have you ever been arrested for OC? Or at least handcuffed and disarmed while they "sorted it out"?

I'm not against OC, but it's just something I don't feel the need to do, or more accurately, something I don't have the nerve to do. I'd be the lucky handcuffed guy getting clubbed by an overzealous cop for daring to carry a gun in public, even though it's technically legal to do so here in CO. Sure, I'd be within my rights, but getting clubbed hurts, and I don't like pain.

Steve Raacke
January 3, 2011, 04:19 PM
Rondog- Some Open Carriers seem to have more negative encounters than others. I know of at least on OCer who has posted to our forum at LOCAL and has been detained twice. I have never been detained.

General Geoff
January 3, 2011, 04:20 PM
How many times have you been "talked to" by LEO's because of OC?
Once.

How many of those times were initiated by the LEO, and how many times were initiated by a "man with a gun" call by a citizen?
Unknown, the officer didn't specify.

Have you ever been arrested for OC? Or at least handcuffed and disarmed while they "sorted it out"?
No, and no.

Steve Raacke
January 3, 2011, 04:25 PM
Here's a post I made in our LOCAL forum regarding early cases from the 1850s regarding the thinking regarding Open Carry in La.
---------------
State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850),
Cited in Heller, this is an old one going all the way back to 1850 -
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."I couldn't find a link directly to Chandler but it's cited in Heller down in the section for - 2. Pre-Civil War Case Law. The Heller case can be found at- http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=8000002&kqfp=13355356587636673202&kql=278&kqpfp=3302376802659990373#kq

Also, I found it at this link- http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-oieahc&month=0208&week=b&msg=zZGlyBJYxam9KGQ5kAsUbg&user=&pw= which says-
While these are mostly about state arms control provisions, several do
explicitly describe the right protected by the Second Amendment, such as
State v. Chandler (La. 1850): this manslaughter case ruled that a ban on
"carrying concealed weapons is not unconstitutional." The ban "interfered
with no man's right to carry arms... 'in full open view,' which places men
upon an equality. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the
United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble
defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any
tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassination." The volume was
tightly bound--a few words on the edge of some pages are hard to read.The author also discusses two other cases.
State v. Smith (La. 1856): upheld a ban on partially concealed weapons.
"The statute against carrying concealed weapons does not contravene the
second article of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
The arms there spoken of are such as borne by a people in war, or at least
carried openly."
and
State v. Jumel (La. 1858): upheld a ban on concealed carrying of weapons,
echoing the previous Louisiana precedents that the Second Amendment
guaranteed the individual the right to carry arms openly, not concealed.
Learn more at- http://www.laopencarry.org/forum-rules-frequently-asked-questions-f2.html

NavyLCDR
January 3, 2011, 04:33 PM
Rondog, I am replying on my phone, so I will answer your questions in the order asked, because I am not smart enough to figure out how to cut and paste :-)

3
2, 1
No & no

wishin
January 3, 2011, 07:22 PM
Questions for the Open Carriers - because I'm just curious....

How many times have you been "talked to" by LEO's because of OC?

None

How many of those times were initiated by the LEO, and how many times were initiated by a "man with a gun" call by a citizen?

None

Have you ever been arrested for OC? Or at least handcuffed and disarmed while they "sorted it out"?

No



Most all of my carry is open unless it's winter, or I'm being overly sensitive to the panic factor - I learned the hard way that the retirement community where my mother-in-law lives falls in that category. I conceded to their management's concern by draping my shirt over my belt:)

NavyLCDR
January 3, 2011, 08:01 PM
Fiddletown,

I would rather excercise my rights and have them legislated away only after fighting for them than to live in fear of losing them. What good does it do to have a right to do something, but to be too afraid to do it anyway? Might as well take the right away anyways, but then the fear of exercising the right will be replaced with a longing that you had the chance to exercise it and a wondering as to how you lost it.

Frank Ettin
January 3, 2011, 09:04 PM
I would rather excercise my rights and have them legislated away only after fighting for them...Your choice, of course. And of course, it's not just you but other gun owners as well. You might want to ask some of the folks in Florida who are now tying to win back open carry.

And consider that it's perhaps less a question of exercising a right than it is how you exercise the right. Are you discrete and considerate; or do you flaunt your conduct, not caring what others think? Open carry, because you find it a convenient way in which to go about armed may be one thing. But it is another thing for one to indulge the fantasy, without any supporting evidence, that by carrying openly he is a poster boy for the RKBA.

And it is in fact the nature of our representative democracy that conduct found obnoxious by enough of the body politic has, and will, successfully bring pressure to bear on legislators and/or regulators to curb, curtail, limit or ban that conduct. It sort of illustrates how the thoughtless acts of a few can ruin it for everyone.

For some further reading in that vein, you might be interested in this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=347757&highlight=motorcycle) over at CalGuns. Apparently we have a new law regarding motorcycle exhausts. It also appears that part of the impetus for the enactment of that law was public ire over load bikes. Some of the biker community is now very unhappy. But what's especially interesting is that there seem to be a number of presumptively freedom loving CalGuns folks who themselves have been sufficiently annoyed by some load bikes to lack sympathy for the unhappy bikers.

NavyLT, I know that you are a champion of open carry. You might want to think about what you could do to encourage folks who open carry to be responsible about it so as, hopefully, to preserve if as long as possible.

NavyLCDR
January 3, 2011, 09:54 PM
99% of the open carriers here: www.opencarry.org are "responsible".

wishin
January 3, 2011, 10:57 PM
I'm beginning to think that the reason I don't get hassled by LEO's when OCing is that there really aren't very many people walking around in my area with a handgun in plain view. That doesn't make a lot of sense; seems counter intuitive. Which then makes me wonder if maybe they assume that the unintimidating old guy out with a gun in evidence must be on the up and up. On the other hand, how many LEO's do I encounter in a week, a month or a year.

Given some of the other posts, I'm also somewhat surprised that the public around here rarely stares or does a double-take when I'm out and about. I suspect that in many cases it may have more to do with the general public's perception of the individual carrier. Or can it be the limited number of OCers? I have no clue.

So, in order to advance the OC initiative around the country I propose that we have a national open carry week where only seniors (not looking like the unibomber) legally walk around their respective cities and neighborhoods with guns smartly holstered out in the open. :D

driftrider
January 3, 2011, 11:19 PM
@wishin

I imagine that it has something to do with where you live. If you went walking around in downtown Atlanta you might get a different reaction.

Where I live (Iowa City, IA), the place is just jam packed with left wing zealots and crazies. I can't even begin to imagine the potential panic that I could cause by walking around with a gun at my side. Of course, there isn't any way to know for sure but to try, but I don't think that a guy could make it from one end of the ped mall to the other without having someone call the cops.

This is a place where it took 15 years and a campus shooting to convince the wackos that the University of Iowa Police should be armed.

Mike

NavyLCDR
January 4, 2011, 01:13 AM
Where I live (Iowa City, IA), the place is just jam packed with left wing zealots and crazies. I can't even begin to imagine the potential panic that I could cause by walking around with a gun at my side. Of course, there isn't any way to know for sure but to try, but I don't think that a guy could make it from one end of the ped mall to the other without having someone call the cops.

And that's never going to change if all the public is exposed to is the image of firearms presented to them by the Brady Campaign and the media. Nobody is showing them that it is normal in America to carry a gun for self protection.

driftrider
January 4, 2011, 01:50 AM
Again, that may be true, but I don't feel like getting harassed by the ICPD, and possibly arrested. They'll find a reason, trust me. Disturbing the peace, interference with official acts, or whatever else they can stick me with. I don't trust the ICPD. (They arrested my brother once for public intox because he wisely chose to walk home from the bar (like 4 or 5 blocks) instead of drive. Apparently that ICPD "robocop" left his good sense and discretion at home that night.)

Anyway, I don't want to be the test case for the open carry cause. And I sure don't want to be the rallying cry for the anti's in Iowa (MANY of whom live in IC) to restrict or repeal the shall issue or open carry law for everybody else. Especially given the lather the press and the opposition is worked into right now. Maybe in a year or two when the dire prophesies of blood running in the streets and massacres over parking spaces prove false, it'll be time to start breaking the public in to open carry.

I support your cause in principle, but in practice it may be problematic. If instead of warming the public to open carry we wind up with concealed only with penalties for showing the weapon in any way like some states, we'll be heading backwards. Not good, and the risk/reward isn't worth it at this time, IMO.

Mike

General Geoff
January 4, 2011, 02:02 AM
Again, that may be true, but I don't feel like getting harassed by the ICPD, and possibly arrested. They'll find a reason, trust me. Disturbing the peace, interference with official acts, or whatever else they can stick me with. I don't trust the ICPD.

It is a very sad day when a responsible citizen distrusts his police department. :(

Carne Frio
January 4, 2011, 02:07 AM
" If I'm correct, when the Constitution was written it pertained to Open Carry, as Concealed Carry was more for criminals. "

Well, your not correct. Can you show us anything written back then
concerning the topic ? I do thank you for getting a nice lively discussion
going. This thread has been very good reading.

driftrider
January 4, 2011, 02:26 AM
It is a very sad day when a responsible citizen distrusts his police department.

Yep, but I don't and probably never will. I'm sure there are truly good officers that work there, but I've never encountered one. All the ones I've every met have a robocop mentality.

Mike

GEM
January 4, 2011, 11:59 AM
One concern in TX is that if OC was passed, we would see a large number of new 30.06 signs which would be quite counterproductive.

Also, it is clear in TX polling that the main issues are parking lot and campus carry issues. OC is not high on the list of priorities, nor is it particularly useful if one considers SD applications.

NavyLCDR
January 4, 2011, 12:15 PM
One concern in TX is that if OC was passed, we would see a large number of new 30.06 signs which would be quite counterproductive.

That has not been a problem in the states that have allowed open carry.

usmarine0352_2005
January 4, 2011, 04:42 PM
Yep, but I don't and probably never will. I'm sure there are truly good officers that work there, but I've never encountered one. All the ones I've every met have a robocop mentality.

Mike



Must have all been troopers.



lol

.

NavyLCDR
January 4, 2011, 07:14 PM
The State Troopers in Washington are the best of the bunch here. It's a few (just a few) of the local Barneys here that have problems.

NMGonzo
January 4, 2011, 09:23 PM
In new mexico, open carry is perfectly easy but concealed is regulated.

Soon to change I hope ... for either way easy.

USAF_Vet
January 6, 2011, 03:44 PM
Here in Michigan, Article I Section 6 of the Constitution states: “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.” Open carry is perfectly legal. No local ordinance can be enacted which prohibits open carry, although open carry in a vehicle falls under concealed carry statutes, and one must have a CCW license in order to open carry in a vehicle. Naturally, certain places prohibit CC and OC such as gov't buildings, K-12 schools, and other areas that fall under federal law.

mgmorden
January 6, 2011, 04:56 PM
OC isn't legal (except while hunting) here in SC, but I can honestly say I might like if it was.

Reasoning is simple: as a rule, I don't let carrying dictate any terms of my life. Just as a personal view, when it reaches that point then that's the day I won't carry. With that in mind, I don't pick out specific clothing for carry purposes and the like. I don't wear my shirt untucked when I otherwise would tuck it in in order to carry. Not knocking anyone who choses to do this at all - just saying it's not for me.

With that in mind, most of what is suitable to carry with no muss are the little tiny pocket pistols that I can drop into my pocket and just go. My Ruger LCP for example. While I feel better having it, the reality is that it's not my favorite gun. I'd LOVE to be able to carry my SIG P6 instead for example, but 90% of the time that would require the aforementioned wardrobe adjustments specifically to carry. With open carry, I can slip the holster onto my belt (which I'm always wearing anyways) and I'm good to go.

BBQLS1
January 6, 2011, 06:18 PM
Career criminals are opportunists. Given the choice, they will always attack the unarmed target. They are looking for easy victims, not people who might open fire on them.


This assumes, you know what a criminal thinks. You never know what someone else is thinking, especially derranged enough to perform armed robbery.

Heck, I don't know what my wife is thinking. How am I supposed to know what a criminal is thinking?

AL Ranger
January 6, 2011, 06:57 PM
Open Carriers Deter Robbery In Kennesaw, GA Waffle House, here's the link: Open Carriers Stop Robbery (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw)

Alabama is an open carry state and CCWs are fairly easy to get since, by state law, you need one to carry a pistol (not rifle or shotgun) in a vehicle. Many cops do not know open carry is legal and we are addressing that fact and making a lot of progress. Open Carry allows the "element of deterrent" versus concealed carrys "element of surprise". If a bad guy SEES your gun, it makes him wonder how many more are out there he can't see.

I've opened carried in my previous state of VA and now open carry in AL. To this date, I have not had a single problem. I do know others who have had but once they informed the cops of the laws, they were released. One of our members was not so lucky, but his problem stemmed from the fact that he carried an AK-47-style semi-auto, not a handgun.

General Geoff
January 7, 2011, 03:43 PM
This assumes, you know what a criminal thinks.

I don't go visiting the intentions of a criminal, I assume the worst. However, a career criminal will follow the path of least resistance to strike proverbial paydirt; a citizen who is known to be armed is generally not the path of least resistance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will there be a change from Concealed Carry to Open Carry?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!