Washington Open Carrying on 5/22/04

As far as i can tell the only thing that open carry does that concealed carry doesnt is get LOTS of attention and provide a nice big "shoot me first" sign.

It also says "wow people who carry guns really ARE crazy" to a lot of fence sitters.

So, really i cant see the purpose.

I do not carry in a holster. I find that gets much more attention then the way I carry. I have a conceal carry type clip I have put on the slide of my .45. It slides into my pants in front and clips on my belt.

Click to expand...

Uh, that clip wouldn't happen to somehow cover the trigger/trigger guard? I'm completely pro-open carry and I do it all the time, and it's pretty socially acceptable in my state, but I'd be very, very reluctant to pack something that didn't secure my weapon fully.

That being said, I guess I'm glad that we're not part of what some people think is the "21st century" over here.

Why can't you do concealed carry?

Based on what you say it seems to me that the whole point is to "rock the boat" and try to draw some awareness towards the second ammendment. Thats fine, i like rocking the boat too. But, when you seek out to be a spectacle don't get upset when you get a lot of attention. That is the whole point.

FishOrMan,

Kudos for sticking up for your rights.

Wild,

....

Wildalaska, your counter argument can be summed up as, "I think anyone who open carries in an urban center is a numbnuts because I haven't ever seen anyone do it before." Again I am disappointed. The best supporting evidence you have is, "I aint taking no chances with my life or someone elses." So do you call the cops every time you see an police officer openly carrying? Is it too absurd to consider that law enforcement officers can be impersonated? Again, the most shocking part of your reasoning is that a person who decides to lawfully carry a firearm for their own protection is a radical or looking for trouble. Just like people who carry concealed right? I mean why else would they want to carry a gun around in public? So by that reasoning are you going to call the police to check out people you suspect have guns? What about people who are carrying concealed and accidently expose themselves (lol, their firearm you pervs!)? Make sure you call them in too.

I don't see how one can remain consistant to say that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, except that you don't trust them to carry arms around you. Either the average citizen is capable of carrying openly just as much as concealed and these rights should not be infringed or people other than trained law enforcement are not mentally capable of carrying a weapon and for the public good they should not be allowed to carrying a weapon that is designed solely for the purpose of killing.

Can anyone explain to me how a law abiding citizen who is confronted by the police, is questioned, and released because he was lawfully carrying is a bad thing? Worse case scenario the media shows up and runs an article about it. More people who have a desire to legally carry a firearm for self defense but didn't think they could see that they can. You get those fense sitters to come our way. The fense sitters who are ready to say that is wrong aren't coming our way anyway.

Either you have a right to carry or you don't. Either you support the right to carry or you don't. You either are scared by seeing armed citizens who are not acting strangely and are abiding by the law or you are not. I think your answers to those questions should pretty much establish whether you are truely for us or against us. You either want to remain consistant with everyone's right to keep and bear arms or you think there is some sort of elitist social structure that enables law enforcement the higher order thinking skills necessary to carry publically, while the average man and citizen is incapable and must be a law breaker. Frankly this attitude by people on our side is disappointing and inconsistent.

El Rojo, excellent points of of them. Unfortuneately, from all the posts I have read here I think they will fall on his deaf ears.

I suspect that he's only concerned with his right to 'hunt bears' and other assorted critters.

I hope I'm wrong about that.

Carrying a gun in public openly is one way of protecting yourself.

Would a criminal bother a guy openly carrying or just find an easier target?

How many criminal carry their guns OPENLY IN A HOLSTER???

FishOrMan-

I'd rethink the open carry holster idea, especially as you're making a political statement about the CCW permit in doing so.

Even with a clip attached, the 'Mexican carry" appearance will probably set more alarm bells ringing than a decent OWB holster at 3 o'clock. You will also have better control of retention, and (as noted previously) a holster that covers the trigger guard are is safer generally.

I like your style, though, and welcome to the forum. It appears you have carefully tthought out your position and are prepared to accept and handle gracefully the consequences of your actions. You are also wiling and able to articulate your position well, even under stress - kudos!

A free citizen can do no more - and no less.

Here in the PDR of Kalifornistan (Hi, El Rojo! Good comments ) open carry is legal only in a few rural counties, and in no incorporated cities. CCWs are obtainable with varying dgrees of ease or not, depending on the county. I carried openly for several years - as a uniformed armed guard and armored truck messenger. I now have to worry about "printing" (though I don't worry very much) and wear a jacket or Hawaiian shirt all the time; it's a hassle, but then we're not living in America here Unfortunately, we may be living in America's Future.

I do support the idea that if more people carried openly, it would not be such a shock to system. I would myself if possible here. Nothing would jangle the automatic reactions of the bliss ninnies (yeah, I had to say it! ) more than a graying fat broad with a 1911 on her hip!

WildAlaska:

...in a modern urban area a person who carries a gun openly, IMHO, is either looking for trouble or is trying to push a radical agenda ...

Click to expand...

The logical conclusion of your argument is that the RKBA is a "radical agenda." While I suspect that this is correct from a gun-grabber's perspective, I'm disappointed to hear that opinion from a participant in a RKBA forum.

As to open carry in urban areas, I can't comment about Alaska because I haven't been there. But I have been to Arizona on business, so I can speak to Arizona. I have seen people strolling through downtown shopping malls with huge, scary-looking guns strapped to their hips. They typically wear jeans and shirts in Phoenix and Tucson, no need for outer jackets, so this was VERY definitely open carry.

Guess what? NOBODY (except me, the tourist) EVEN NOTICED. It's legal there, people do it there, so it isn't a big deal. Nobody gets excited, nobody screams "Man with a gun!", nobody calls the cops. That's the way it should be everywhere, but if we don't act to reclaim the right, we'll lose it.

WildAlaska:

Contary to your view, I don't find that the Spencer case is at all relevant to FishOrMan's situation. Most of the Spencer court's decision discussed whether or not the statute is constitutional, and having found it constituional they then discussed whether or not it was overly vague or overly broad.

The crux of the Spencer decision lies in this snippet of the decision:

[9] Having determined that the "warrants alarm" portion of the statute is not vague, the only remaining question is whether Spencer's conduct falls within the statute's constitutional core. Clearly, it does. Any reasonable person would feel alarmed upon seeing, on a residential street at night, a man carrying a visibly loaded AK-47 assault rifle in an assaultive manner. This alarm would be intensified if the man were walking briskly with his head down and avoiding eye contact with passers-by, as Spencer was doing. Furthermore, our conclusion that Spencer's conduct warranted alarm is supported by the kinds of people who were alarmed in this case, including several firefighters, a police officer, and a passing motorist.

We also conclude that a person of common intelligence would realize that carrying an assault rifle under such circumstances and in such a manner would warrant alarm in others. Whether different circumstances would warrant alarm is a question that must be left open; here, however, Spencer's conduct falls squarely within the core of the statute. Therefore, we reject Spencer's argument that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Click to expand...

Note that the court specifically limits its ruling to the Spencer case, which involved a man carrying (not wearing) a military pattern rifle "in an assaultive manner" (whatever the heck that means). The circumstances of a man carrying an ordinary handgun in his trousers and going about his daily routine ... in a NON-"assaultive manner" ... seems quite clearly to be precisely what the court had in mind in writing that "...Whether different circumstances would warrant alarm is a question that must be left open;..."

You're trying very hard to make the Spencer case fit this situation, but it doesn't.

Citizen's in Washington State don't have a right to carry concealed, we have to ask permission to do that, (although in conversation with one of the other officers he was proud of the fact he was above the law and didn't need a CCW permit, "I'm a police officer, I don't need a CCW when I am off duty." Thank you sir. Would you like me to fetch your slippers for you?

Click to expand...

Actually WA is a shall-issue state and citizens DO have a right to carry concealed, so we don't have to "ask" permission at all........we do of course have to undergo a background check, etc, which is not a too egregious an infringement and relatively reasonable relative to other states like CA, NJ, etc.

Now, I actually think open carry SHOULD be legal, but I'm loathe to the idea myself. Obviously the reaction many people have to seeing guns in legal hands is quite ridiculous, but it is unfortunately a reality and I think that in today's times a concealed handgun works much better for all involved. While it might be noble to think we can "desensitize" the common folk, that's a pipe dream at best. You exposing your gun to citizentry around where you live does not all mean they're suddenly going to be sympathetic to the cause, and may in fact turn out to be LESS sympathetic. What I think gun owners should focus on is remaining at all times quiet and discreet, not ostentatious and boastful. We don't want to cause scenes where multiple cops show up and advocate business' forbidding firearms carrying. What many patrons will take from this will be; "Some guy showed up and gave the cops a whole bunch of problems with his gun.....we need to outlaw those........" instead of you going about your business uneventfully while armed and protected.

There is a time and place for standing up for your rights and fighting for them, and I would humbly submit you chose your fight poorly.

fixisveryworriedaboutwildalaskaandseveralothermemberswhoarepilingon

Actually WA is a shall-issue state and citizens DO have a right to carry concealed, so we don't have to "ask" permission at all........we do of course have to undergo a background check, etc, which is not a too egregious an infringement and relatively reasonable relative to other states like CA, NJ, etc.

Click to expand...

Semantics, Seigfried.

To a strict constructionist, having to apply for a license or permit before being "allowed" to exercise a Constitutional right is having to "ask permission." The Constitution of the United States says that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." Apparently, the Washington State constitution says the RKBA shall not be "impaired." To a strict constructionist, ANY requirement to apply through any agency, undergo any sort of background check, and obtain any sort of permit or license constitutes an infringement or impairment of the underlying constitutional right.

The only kind of permit or license structure that would pass a strict constitutional review would be if each state automatically mailed each citizen a CCW permit on their 18th or 21st birthday (whatever the voting age is in that state). No background check, no application, every voting-age citizen gets one automatically. Oh, yeah -- and so what if you lose it -- if you have to carry or show the piece of paper when you're carrying, that's also an infringement, so there can't be any requirement to carry the permit when packing.

Shall issue is better than may-issue, which is better than no-issue ... but shall-issue still falls far short of satisfying what the 2nd Amendment really says.

c_yeager wrote..

As far as i can tell the only thing that open carry does that concealed carry doesnt is get LOTS of attention and provide a nice big "shoot me first" sign.

It also says "wow people who carry guns really ARE crazy" to a lot of fence sitters.

So, really i cant see the purpose.
[\quote]

How about in states like mine where we can not carry concealed in certain places like a Red Lobster or any place that servers alcohol, but we can open carry everywhere?

I guess a better question is should we give up the right to open carry just because YOU can't see a reason for it at this point in time?

Clearly there is a tactical disadvantage in open carry that's not up for discussion.


The discussion is about how we can either allow our rights to be eroded or do something that will help sustain what meager rights we do have.

Click to expand...

Rarely does it happen that both sides of an argument in one of these threads can be hosed up, but this is one of them.

Wild....open carry is legal, he broke no laws, just because you have an irrational fear of guns that would lead you to react the way you say you would does not make it illegal....get over it, move to someplace like Jersey where you never have to see it, or become a hermit somewhere in northern AK.



Fish......you are doing all you can to press the limits of the laws.....having a handle sticking out of a cargo pants pocket is not only UNCONCEALED (that could be a friggin' cap gun or some other toy, it's not CLEARLY a handgun) but it's VERY unprofessional and, yes, immature. Who in their right mind would toss a 1911, 1991 or any other single action only pistol (especially if carried in condition 1 and ready to put into use) into a damned cargo pants pocket.

Grow up kiddo....if you want to open carry, and I believe you should if you choose to do so, do it with some semblance of professionalism and common sense, not like some 20 something gang banger wannabe. All you're doing is setting a bad example for the rest of us that share your point of view as it pertains to the 2nd amendment.

Hawkmoon-

I too would like to see the VT style of CCW apply nationwide and agree that the permit system does in fact constitute an infringement, especially when taking a strict constructionist perspective. That being said however, the statement about being forbidden to carry concealed weapons and having to "ask" permission was technically incorrect, from a strictly constructionist point of view of course.

You're not the only one that can split hairs.

Your court costs pal, not mine.

Me personally, a nice holster and a good attitude would be at the top of my shopping list. Then when someone cries wolf and the police show up you don't look, or act, like some punk that's just doing what he's doing in order to make a point.

Better to do what you're doing to make a point without them being able to see clearly that's what you're doing.

Follow?

Some many posts so little time....

So do you call the cops every time you see an police officer openly carrying? Is it too absurd to consider that law enforcement officers can be impersonated?

Click to expand...

Oh pu-leeze

And no I dont call the cops when I see a security guard with a gun, nor would I do it when I see someone at the trail head carrying a gun, nor would I do it if I saw a guy putting his rifle in the trunk, or standing in front of a gun shop with one, or any other reasonable circumstances where one would be expected to have a gun..

Hell I walked out the house today w/ gun shoved in my waist, Id have no problem if a cop asked me what I was doing...

Again, the most shocking part of your reasoning is that a person who decides to lawfully carry a firearm for their own protection is a radical or looking for trouble.

Click to expand...

Thats correct...in this day and age normal people dont walk into Nordstroms or Macys with a gun on their hip..I see a significant differnece between carrying concealed and carrying openly, especially with some of the rationales i see posted on this Board...

Anyway wish I could post more, gonna have to be one liners for the rest of the day, its alligator time (up to my you know what)...

WildeveryvendorismessinguptodayAlaska

Oh, and another thought;

Let's pretend you're forced to shoot someone. How sympathetic and understanding do you think responding cops will be? Certainly, I don't doubt for a second that you're capable of using good judgement in this scenario and that a court of law might acquit you, but the impression you've left with local LE might mean the difference between cooling in jail while things are sorted out or waiting it out while NOT in custody. Worse, I probably don't need to tell you what an ambitious leftist prosecutor might be like; they may just try and use these incidents against you and paint you as some trigger-happy guy just waiting to go off half-cocked.

C'mon people, we really need to err on the side of caution and discretion.

*shrugs*

You've already made up your mind on several issues, so perhaps it's futile to post again.

Let me be very clear, I'm on YOUR side of the issue. But there is more to every issue then meets the eye. It IS important to try and make any LE encounter a good one.....because one day you may have to shoot someone. Being known to LE as the ornery hothead, whether justifiably so or not, probably isn't prudent and could well spell heartache in the future. Discretion is definitely the better part of valor.