The Open Carry Debate

[RustyShackelford]

Post #36, armed robberies, OCers.....

I agree with post #36.
You'll know when you are in the middle of a armed robbery.
If you see any media reports or local news videos of armed crimes which involve rifles/shotguns, you'll see the robbers don't rush in with the weapons on slings or stand around.

I'd add that you can not guess, estimate or assume what anyone in the general public will say or do.

In the mid 2000s, I had a seasoned citizen get upset that I had my holstered Ruger GPNY .38spl revolver in a cross-draw. I was doing a armed security detail in a low end chain hotel. The guest didn't want any guns pointed at him.
I calmly explained to the guest, that the firearm was holstered & I didn't have my hands on it.
I read a gun magazine item a few years ago of a sworn LE officer/air crew member who got into a spat with a ER doctor over his duty pistol in a horizontal shoulder rig.

Like the IL/Denny's incident, you'll have some shrieking violets out there that neither know the law or care. It's all about their safety.

 

[Praxidike]

To me it's all comes down to common sense and common courtesy, even for those who whine open carrying, while out in public. We can't expect them to respect us if we don't have any respect for them. Even if it's legal, there's a time and a place for everything.

 

[buck460XVR]

I was an LEO for 26 years,and in MY state [ that is what MY judgement is based upon ] it is a THREAT WITH A GUN [ deadly physical force ] to walk into anyplace [ other than your home ] with a firearm in a "present arms" manner.

Yep pretty scarey. Those folks in the background must be wettin' themselves.




Lets be real here. These idiots did not walk in the place with guns at the ready, and fingers on the triggers. Thy did not present evidence that they were intent on using their firearms. This is a posed picture and as you can see from those in the background, not a threat. Everyone in the place knew they were not there for a mass shooting. Hard to believe a seasoned LEO would consider that scenario a situation where deadly force is deemed necessary. Thinking so is as ridiculous as the idiots in the pic.

 

[Officers'Wife]

My grandmother told me there was a time and a place to wear jeans and boots, a time and place to wear a swimsuit and a time and a place to dress like a lady. Now there is no law saying I can't wear my swimsuit in McDonalds or even church but such a thing would be sorely inappropriate. I can't help but think the same would apply to having my Enfield or SAIGA slung on my shoulder and great Grandfather's revolver on my hip. There are places where it would be perfectly legal but highly inappropriate. Perhaps the debate would be settled if people would just ask the advice of an old school grandmother.

Barring that, I'm sure Sister Beatrice (my Catholic grammer school teacher) would be more than happy to advise them on appropriate wearing apparel.

 

[larryh1108]

.... or all the empty tables you see were full of patrons when they walked in. I know the table I could be sitting at would be empty for the picture and my business out the door once the rifles are off and in their hands.

Why would I want to wait around to see if they are clowns or psychos? We carry for that once in a lifetime time chance you need your weapon. With 2 clowns around like these two, the odds of needing your weapon increased tremendously. It is said that you shouldn't go to an area where you don't feel safe. If that area comes to where you are, you should leave, right?

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Then it would be wise to not do something stupid to hurt the possibility of getting open carrying of handguns legal in that state. Like carrying rifles in Chipotle with sole purpose of drawing attention

Did I say otherwise? Not everyone that open carries is as stupid as the ones at Chipotle.

 

[steelerdude99]

And now, there is a possibility that someone who calls 911 may not have honorable intent; case in point: this guy.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/149...911-yell-shots-fired-sees-yahoo-half-wit-gun/

From the above: Far-left radio talk-show host Mike Malloy has a plan for the next time he sees a law-abiding open-carry gun owner in public: Start screaming “Guns, guns, hit the deck!” Call 911 and say “Shots fired.” ...

chuck

 

[larryh1108]

Well, he should be arrested for yelling fire in a theatre. It's the same principle. "shots fired" is just as bad, if not worse than yelling "fire". I'm sure there are other charges he could be charged with even if he didn't yell "shots fired".

 

[Fred_G]

The conspiracy side of me thinks a lot of these public displays are being done by anti 2A people, who want to make gun owners look like nuts, and make more people think 'responsible' gun laws are needed.

There are places where it would be perfectly legal but highly inappropriate. Perhaps the debate would be settled if people would just ask the advice of an old school grandmother.

Barring that, I'm sure Sister Beatrice (my Catholic grammer school teacher) would be more than happy to advise them on appropriate wearing apparel.
Today 11:57 AM

Well said ma'am, a little 'old school' common sense goes a long way.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Vapid....

Many people can't pay attention while driving let alone while wandering into a fast food stop.
I highly doubt most customers or patrons would even notice 80-90% of most OCers(holstered handguns). Unless you had a SWAT/Blackhawk vest or wore a big pistol with a red dot scope & white-light in a SAS/drop holster. I don't think anyone would even glance over. People stare at their cell phones & tablets more than other people in 2014.

As posted, if a shop owner or franchisee doesn't want firearms then leave.
I've stated before in other forums that most small businesses & restaurants just want to avoid street gangs or thugs who may be armed then arrested/trespass by the off duty LE or uniformed security hired to guard the property.
If you walked in, paid for your purchase, ate or sat outside, then left without incident I doubt you'd get on the evening news.

 

[hardluk1]

NC an OC state . And some carry that way . Just don't walk in to a business as part of a group of un kept and un-ed-u-ma-cat'd lokn bumpk'ns and not expect someone to get a worried feeling and call the law or have management tell you to get out. And still all you need is a tree and bunny hung'n waiter person to tell management " I feel worried around them" and your probably gone from there. That happened In Ashville NC to a group of police officers that were told to leave a wing restaurant .

 

[RustyShackelford]

Sad but true....

I saw a older video of a uniformed Portland Police Bureau officer in Portland OR who was asked to leave some hippy dippy coffee bar.
He acted professional. I would have completely lost my ___ .
As noted, the mature thing to do is to leave & not spend $$$ there, but some people are just ___s.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RustyShackelford: You'll know when you are in the middle of a armed robbery.

In the middle? Sure. And you will be in a very bad situation indeed.

The problem that arises when one or more persons carrying unslung long arms enter an establishment is that there is no way for anyone to know what is about to unfold, and whatever it will be, it could happen very rapidly indeed.

The responsible citizen would exit immediately, if possible. If not, there is no way to predict what might happen.

Previous notice that someone intends to enter for demonstration purposes would, of course, address that part of the issue--for those who had gotten the memo.

That does not solve the publicity problem at all.

 

[scaatylobo]

@ buck460xvr

I am sorry that you don't understand my post.

I was NOT told that these 2 retards did not walk in with their guns in hand and ready to shoot.

IF that were the case [ they came in with shoulder carry ] and then made a HUGE deal about a photographer and "posing" = that would have made a HUGE difference.

BUT,there is no way I need to be around a idiot that is playing mall ninja with a real firearm in public.

I have been a firearms instructor for LEO's ,and too many of them are UNSAFE with a gun.

And I have seen too many at the range [ civilians ] doing really stupid things with a firearm.

that being the FACT = I see no reason to have ANYONE !,handling a gun in public.

UNLESS IT IS TO ADDRESS A THREAT.

 

[ilbob]

I think there is a good chance that SCOTUS eventually says OC is the protected part of "bearing arms". They have made it quite clear that CC can be heavily regulated, maybe to the point of all but banning it as some areas have done.

You cannot rule that something is a "right" and then say that a state can all but ban it. That is what suggests to me they could be waiting on an OC case to get there before accepting another 2A case.

I admit I am somewhat uncomfortable with some of the OC displays. I am not sure it makes the situation any worse.

The antis do not not want anyone carrying firearms in public. The majority of the rest just do not care all that much about the issue. They see a few firearms and it will get their attention for a short time and then they will go back to not caring.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I think there is a good chance that SCOTUS eventually says OC is the protected part of "bearing arms". They have made it quite clear that CC can be heavily regulated, maybe to the point of all but banning it as some areas have done.

You cannot rule that something is a "right" and then say that a state can all but ban it. That is what suggests to me they could be waiting on an OC case to get there before accepting another 2A case.

I have my doubts about that "protected part". The decisions that I have read would indicate to me that they won't meddle in states rights to regulate past a RKBA. To me that means the states can run the course from AR/AK bans to OC and everything in between.

There was a pretty good topic here about the construction of a statute that the court recently ruled on about straw purchases. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=754711. That has everything to do with a SC ruling. The construction of 2A lends itself more toward militias made up of citizen soldiers, as the Continental Army was, than it does self defense issues like OC. My feeling is the SC would never even consider an OC case and leave it up to the district courts to rule on. At least that has been the trend so far.

Another thing to consider. If the SC rules it may not be in the interest of those who want OC. When that happens that gives the AG crowd a wrecking bar to start dismantling state constitutions regarding the way people carry.

Personally, I think you want to keep congress and the SC out of states rights issues as much as possible. One size doesn't fit everyone very well in most situations. That's why we have state constitutions and legislators. The fed gov't has been shown to be somewhat ineffective and unaccountable in most areas. All you have to do is look at the most basic function of any gov't, a balanced budget, and see how the fed scores. Anytime they try to fix a perceived problem it usually ends up creating more problems. Sometimes it's better to just let a sleeping dog lie.

 

[hardheart]

The Fudd-ish nature to these comments is quite surprising. Any place where it is appropriate to carry a handgun, it is appropriate to carry a long gun, as the purpose of carry is self-defense, and the stability, site radius, and terminal performance all prefer the long gun. I the firearm is meant to be a tool and not a security blanket, prosthesis, or piece of jewelry, then the more effective the tool, the better, in all situations.

The talk of being more menacing, more dangerous, the owners markedly less mentally stable or capable, there is zero differentiation for the anti rhetoric. The support for gun free locales, the support for criminalization of carry, the demonization of an inanimate object based on appearance, the instant assumption of unsafe handling practices, it's as if Feinstein has manned the majority of posts in all these threads.

The desire to appease those in opposition to your views by reducing your capabilities and your options is a bit shocking, but expected for internet discourse. Be sure to keep all your firearms trigger-locked, unloaded, and secured in a safe, because there certainly are limits to the right to self-defense based on the opinions of other people who don't actually care all that much about your safety.

Still, it is necessary to compromise your own range of variability and leave it to the highly trained law enforcement officer or soldier, they are obviously the only ones who could be hoped to be trusted with open carry. It takes a couple of decades of training and work to understand how to competently handle firearms, and the only people who can be trusted with a firearm in public are uniformed. It is always safest to assume a typical citizen lacks the wherewithal to handle firearms safely. In fact, it might be best to require training, a test, and rigorously tracked recording of these credentials to allow ownership and carry. Heck, since long guns are such a bad idea, we ought not allow those black rifles to be owned by people who would think that they have the right to carry them. I mean, it's only reasonable to have those things on the range or at the house, and not to transport them in between in any sort of ready state.

Perhaps the happy medium has been found, as this appears acceptable to the majority of participants in these threads.

 

[Old Dog]

The Fudd-ish nature to these comments is quite surprising.

If one considers common sense, courtesy and discretion to be "Fudd-ish," then call me a Fudd.

Any place where it is appropriate to carry a handgun, it is appropriate to carry a long gun,

Ah, no. Going to one's local Applebee's for a little football and a plate of nachos on Sunday afternoon isn't quite the same as gearing up to re-take Ramadi.

The desire to appease those in opposition to your views by reducing your capabilities and your options is a bit shocking, but expected for internet discourse.

Having actually read through this entire thread, I will state for the record that I've seen no posters espousing "appeasing those in opposition ..."

You are spouting the much-expected hard-liner rhetoric that fans the flames the same as the two assclowns in Chipotle.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by hardheart: Any place where it is appropriate to carry a handgun, it is appropriate to carry a long gun...

What a strange assertion.

A lineman on a pole? A painter on a scaffold? An arborist pruning branches? A cyclist carrying groceries? A fly fisherman? At dinner or a movie? In the car? For defense in extremely close quarters?

The support for gun free locales, the support for criminalization of carry, the demonization of an inanimate object based on appearance, the instant assumption of unsafe handling practices, it's as if Feinstein has manned the majority of posts in all these threads.

Who has supported free gun zones or criminalization? Who has demonized the object? What is it about unsafe handling that you do not understand?

The OP addressed the social aspects of the public debate. For a discussion of physical considerations and tactics, we have this thread.

 

[Sam1911]

Any place where it is appropriate to carry a handgun, it is appropriate to carry a long gun, as the purpose of carry is self-defense, and the stability, site radius, and terminal performance all prefer the long gun. I the firearm is meant to be a tool and not a security blanket, prosthesis, or piece of jewelry, then the more effective the tool, the better, in all situations.

Just as a counterpoint, that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Or rather, ignores reality to a degree which seems excessive.

Theoretically, sure, long guns are not more menacing or dangerous than sidearms (ignoring various technical details like energy and trajectory which might make them exceedingly more dangerous to use in densely populated areas).

However, practically they are not "appropriate" to carry in many/most situations. They are large, cumbersome, heavy. They are difficult to keep pointed in a safe direction while executing various tasks in a crowded place. Considering going about your daily routine, they are a huge pain in the butt. Even dragging along a completely inert 8-lb, 30" chunk of metal, with no social overtones or possible risk of endangering anyone, while you go shopping, stop by the bank, get your dry cleaning, eat a lunch out, etc. is supremely annoying, bothersome, and would cause everyone around you to wonder why you're saddling yourself with that impediment and presume you've got at least one screw slightly loose.

Now change the picture and make that inert chunk of steel your pet python. Great. Now you've got a bulky, heavy impediment hung around your neck every where you go, hanging up on things, and keeping at least one hand occupied half the time, that also half the population is seriously afraid of and alarmed by. But in reality, it still isn't capable (realistically) of hurting any bystanders.

Now make it a rifle? All the above absurdity and negatives, PLUS the fact that it actually could -- very realistically -- harm people if you are careless, negligent, horribly unlucky, or someone was to try a dumb stunt like messing with it while your attention is elsewhere.

But hey, there's that one in a million chance that you might need A gun today, and the perhaps one in a BILLION chance that whatever problem you need to employ a gun to solve, a handgun WON'T solve but a rifle WILL. There's no logic to this in the society we actually live in here in the USA in 2014.

Consider that the guys who are EMPLOYED to carry weapons in our society (police officers) and have a sworn duty to confront law-breakers and apprehend violent people DO NOT carry long guns in their daily life. They have them stored, ready, for very specific circumstances, but they know that there is no utility in carrying around a rifle or shotgun.

If they -- trouble magnets and duty-bound to go where you wouldn't, and deal with those you wouldn't face -- don't feel any need to carry rifles around, pretending that there is a realistic need for the average citizen to do so is either farcical or disingenuous. And probably both.

So, admit that these sorts of things either fall into the category of "stunt" or "protest" and then critically analyze whether a) either is effective at reaching the stated goals, and b) we should endorse them as such.

And you can swallow your silly "Fudd" comments right back down because you aren't among sunshine patriots here, or bunny busters and duck whackers. Speaking logically about the practicalities of carrying a rifle doesn't make one less of an RKBA die-hard. It just means we're not too chicken-hearted to speak the truth.

 

[jerkface11]

I think the real victim here is that poor SKS it looks like the tapco catalog took a dump on it.

 

[CoalTrain49]

presume you've got at least one screw slightly loose.

Enough said right there.

 

[ATLDave]

They are difficult to keep pointed in a safe direction while executing various tasks in a crowded place.

This is a really key point. There's essentially no way you're going to carry a rifle around at the low ready and not flag/sweep people routinely. You'd be thrown out of a shooting range for it; why should anyone accept being muzzled by a live gun?

 

[Sam1911]

There's essentially no way you're going to carry a rifle around at the low ready and not flag/sweep people routinely.

I'd extend that to slung rifles as well. Bend over to get something off the bottom shelf in the grocery store, muzzle comes up. Sit down, muzzle goes somewhere. Unsling to slide into a restaurant booth, where's your muzzle? Etc., etc., Yes, your fingers aren't on the trigger, but the trigger is exposed, and sweeping someone is still an unconscionable error.

We wouldn't accept it at the range (would you willingly stand in front of a loaded weapon someone placed on the range bench pointed your way? No?) so why would anyone accept it in public.

The level of STRICT attention a slung rifle requires in a dense public space is an order of magnitude greater than that required by a holstered handgun.

 

[GEM]

I would like to speak to the utility of long gun in everyday carry.

1. Rifles and shotguns are different in terms of safety from handguns. Depending on the gun, they may not be drop safe. Carrying a long arm on patrol is different from having one propped up against a wall in a restaurant. We have dedicate racks for our long arms - does Starbucks?

2. The way to safely carry a long arm (unless in combat) is unchambered, slung and safety on. Talking to experts, we estimate it would take 5 to 7 seconds to get such a gun up and running. This is significantly longer than a handgun. It is not like you carry it in a ready position as in combat.

3. Think about this in Tueller terms. The Tueller radius is usually thought of having 1.5 seconds and 21 ft. for a response (there are ways to beat this with training). However, let's say we go for 6 seconds to get the long arm in action. That increases your radius of potential attackers out to 84 feet. That gives you an exponential increase in area for your situational awareness to cover before you get the gun into play. I doubt the Chipolte commandos could deal with such.

If I had time to set up, yes - I might like to have a long arm. But in most civilian self-defense scenarios - it isn't a time advantage to be fussing with a long arm. I can't go down the mall with a long arm at the ready (unless you are willing to face the consequences of that - the law, being shot by a CHL type).

The most effective weapon and procedure might be to dig a trench and have a Maxim gun. Worked in WWI - but not realistic in Starbucks.

I shudder to ask this but how to you go to the can with your AR , when in mall. Sling it over your back and take risk of the barrel in the water as you squat. Put it on the floor in the urine? Watch it zip under the door by theft?
If you carry it in front as did the giant Chipolte-oid, that's hard at the urinal? Hard to protect from a grab if it is slung in back.

I know - space diapers - get them from NASA!