CCW at grocery store (Story, kind of funny)

I'm still stuck at the unnecessary lie about the insulin pump.

You are under no obligation to answer if you sense the discussion will be hostile.

"Is that a gun?" is easily answered:
- "Why yes, yes it is."
- "I think that's my business"

Since I carry open, concealed, and indifferently I have some experience with that and similar questions. (I've never understood the question, "Is that a real gun?")

If the questioner is openly and clearly hostile then I see no point in engaging. It has been my experience that 99.9% of the time the asker is merely making small talk, supportive, and/or just interested. In all cases I am polite, either in responding or choosing not to respond.

You have a permit or license right? Then stop acting like your carry is illegal, immoral, or shameful.

I was coming back from shooting out int he hills the other day and stopped by Cabellas to pick up some 44 bullets. As I was walking in an older gentleman asked me what kind of gun I had in the holster. I told him it was a USFA copy of a Colt Single Action . He asked me what the grips were and I told him they were ivory and he seemed confused and I told him that it isnt illegal to own them in Washington . Its just illegal to buy them in Washington or to sell them in Washington. He asked me why I was carrying it and I told him because its OK to do that and he told me he would have to start carrying his around like that. It was cordial.

I love these discussions here. So many people on this and forums like this live their entire lives through the sights of their gun and their second amendment rights. It's like all they can see is the front sight and the target, the rest of the world, is blurry. All other considerations, common courtesy, taking the high road in all situations, understanding not everyone shares our view on a particular topic never seems to cross people's minds. We believe that our 2nd amendment rights are fundamental to our well being and our liberty but not everyone does and that does not mean we cannot coexist with them in a civil and polite society. In the end it takes all kinds.

Too often is see people take every interaction or perceived interaction with an antigunner as an opportunity to play anti gun card. Everything is an affront to our personal liberty. In this instance the OP does not know the intent of the lady. He does not know her feelings towards guns but so many people are eager to jump all over her as a rude anti gun grandma looking to take away their rights. All we do know is that he was printing enough for the old lady to notice the pistol on his side. This happens to everyone at one time or another if you carry long enough. It might not be brought to your attention but it happens none the less. We do not know her political views towards guns or anything else for that matter so why the immediate vitriol?

I personally attempt to be calm, rational and polite whenever I discuss any aspects of firearms or any controversial subject in general. We rarely convince others that we have a solid rational belief by shouting them down and being rude. As others in the thread have pointed out it is not just the person you are talking to which may be affected by the encounter but other third parties. It is much easier and productive to be calm polite and rational. I have found that even if you do not change harts and minds with this approach you rarely do more damage and sometimes you actually do some good.

What makes it worse is that when other members suggestion a more reasoned, civil and productive approach they are shouted down here in what I consider a more rude tone then expressed by the old lady in the OP. It seems contradictory. It seems hypocritical and I often do not understand why we try to eat our own in this section of the forum.

Merle1 said:

Respect is a two way street, and it sure didn't sound like she showed any.

Click to expand...

So, two wrongs make a right? Sorry, but IMHO, little old ladies have earned respect and that's why it's shown, when one earns it, it's not a given. In this scenario, who deserves more respect, the inept CWCer that allows his weapon to be shown, or the little old lady that outed him and called him on it?

Kleanbore said:

Posted by Merle 1:No, she was not, but that is irrelevant.

When we arm ourselves, it is incumbent upon us to be polite and to remain so, regardless of what others may say or how they may conduct themselves.

Their "surprise", or lack of it, is not the point. They are not the only people whom we influence with our behavior.

And one more time, responding in a manner unbecoming a lady or gentleman is poor form.

Should a third party become involved in an escalating confrontation, it could end tragically.

Those who cannot or will not govern their tongues should not carry weapons.

Click to expand...

And again you have missed my point, as well as put words in my mouth. Where did I say to get rude back to her.

buck460XVR said:

So, two wrongs make a right? Sorry, but IMHO, little old ladies have earned respect and that's why it's shown, when one earns it, it's not a given. In this scenario, who deserves more respect, the inept CWCer that allows his weapon to be shown, or the little old lady that outed him and called him on it?

Click to expand...

Sorry, not all little old ladies deserve respect simply for being old. In a similar fashion, not all females qualify as ladies.

Interesting to see how this had diverged from the OP's posting.

Point 1: The OP was not "rude" in his response. He chose the response he did in order to defuse the scenario as he saw it. It's several of us who responded (myself included, for some of the examples I gave in my first posting) who started off into the rude responses. And, as it's been pointed out to us since then, rude responses are unbecoming of us.


Point 2: That he said "insulin pump" instead of confirming that he had a gun isn't the big deal that some of us are making it out to be. Was it a lie? Sure. But it had the effect of defusing the encounter, allowing both to go their separate ways with no further ado. Mission accomplished.


Point 3: Claiming the OP to be "inept" in allowing "his weapon to be shown", is name calling, pure and simple, and uncalled for here. What really happened, according to the way the OP is written, was he "printed". Whether we all admit to it or not, if we carry concealed we have all "printed" at one time or another. Any bulge or disturbance in the lay of our clothing caused by our carry weapon and the way we move is "printing". Whether anybody recognizes, or suspects, is beside the point.


We all may have such an encounter, to one degree or another. This thread should serve to make us think about the best possible ways of handling/defusing such an encounter...and it behooves us to do so in the best possible light under the circumstances in which it presents itself.

Merle1 said:

And again you have missed my point, as well as put words in my mouth. Where did I say to get rude back to her.

Click to expand...

You very strong implied (but did not explicitly state, I suppose so you could have your cake and eat it too) that it was okay to be rude in response when you posted this:

Merle1 said:

Respect is a two way street, and it sure didn't sound like she showed any.

Click to expand...

Warp said:

You very strong implied (but did not explicitly state, I suppose so you could have your cake and eat it too) that it was okay to be rude in response when you posted this:

Click to expand...

Think what you like, but if you read back a ways I was one of (if not the) first to point out that one persons behavior reflects upon all gun owners.

Obviously I'm not communicating well, but I was trying to state that the other persons attitude will affect my opinion of them, and I will not kowtow to them. More likely they will be met with silence.

RetiredUSNChief said:

Point 3: Claiming the OP to be "inept" in allowing "his weapon to be shown", is name calling, pure and simple, and uncalled for here.

Click to expand...

Inept is not a noun, it is an adjective having a definition of "without skill or aptitude for a particular task or assignment;". Calling someone inept is simply stating they are not good at something. While we all are good at something, none of us are good at everything....you and I included, thus we all are inept.

RetiredUSNChief said:

What really happened, according to the way the OP is written, was he "printed". Whether we all admit to it or not, if we carry concealed we have all "printed" at one time or another. Any bulge or disturbance in the lay of our clothing caused by our carry weapon and the way we move is "printing". Whether anybody recognizes, or suspects, is beside the point.

Click to expand...

Then why do any of us ever carry CWC if it matters not if we expose our weapon or obviously print all the time? The word concealed is a adjective also, meaning "to hide; withdraw or remove from observation; cover or keep from sight: to keep secret; to prevent or avoid disclosing or divulging:" . Look at any Open Carry thread and you see the majority of folks strongly believe that for civilian SD, keeping your weapon concealed is a major advantage. If we care not if we expose our weapon or print, why bother to even attempt to conceal? Sorry, but IMHO, claiming that it matters not if we expose or print, is just another lame excuse for inept CWC.

My initial response to this thread was that the OP was outed by a little old lady. He then responds with a cute little phrase, to cover his error in an attempt to show some form of superiority over the same little old lady, and expects us to believe she accepted this. I stated in my first response, that more than likely, she walked away shaking her head, muttering the noun "dumba##" under her breath.

I still believe that.

Let's not mince words here...if one calls someone "inept" here in this setting, the way it was done, it's not going to come across as polite. The same for comments like "...is just another lame excuse for inept CWC". However, clarifying that the intent was simply to say "not good at something" helps.


And you're taking what I said about printing to the absurd extreme. Put it into the perspective of reality. The fact that we will ALL print at one time or another does not mean we should stop carrying concealed. It simply means we need to face reality for what it is and think about how we should appropriately deal with it should the time come when someone calls it out.


Whether the lady "accepted" the OP's response or not is beside the point. The point is that the response defused the situation, and he did it in short order. Maybe the lady believed it. Maybe she thinks the guy is a bald-faced liar. Maybe she simply walked away with a reasonable doubt as to what she thought she saw. And maybe she was, indeed, muttering obscenities under her breath. It doesn't matter...he and she parted ways without further ado instead of possibly making a scene in some other fashion.


If you don't like this tact...then feel free to engineer your own for use in a similar encounter. Hopefully it'll likewise resolve such an encounter without any fuss.

This has wandered so far from the OP that I can't believe it's still breathing.

Someone, please, put this thread out of it's misery!

buck460XVR said:

Then why do any of us ever carry CWC if it matters not if we expose our weapon or obviously print all the time? The word concealed is a adjective also,

Click to expand...

I never "CWC". I simply carry. If it's concealed, it's concealed. If it's not, it's not. I don't know why some people are always trying to shove the "concealed" part down everyone else's throat.

Kleanbore said:

In many jurisdictions that is governed by law.

I don't think many people do, but in the case of the OP, one advantage of concealment was plainly obvious.

I too have had my firearm noticed. I prefer that it not happen.

Click to expand...

Open carry is legal in the OP's state with no permit required.

According to opencarry.og, a licensed individual can carry openly in 45 of the 50 US states, although some of those 45 have other stipulations and customs of course.

Two different times same reaction in a constitutional carry state.

I was CC'ing when shopping for a pellet stove with my wife. The day started cool but warmed up and I had removed my jacket which was doing the better part of the first 'C'. Every time I bent or squatted down to look at some part of a stove I could feel my shirt hike up over the pistol I had in an IWB holster in the back of my jeans to the point where I was becoming really uncomfortable. I felt sure someone would call me (or LE) out for brandishing.

One day my son and I were running errands which included switching cars at an auto dealership. After the dealership we were on our way to our LGS to check on an issue my son was having with his MSR. when I arrived at the dealership I took my son's rifle out of the car and carried it into the service department to swap the sets of keys, keeping good muzzle discipline at all times. The woman at the service desk said the mechanic wanted to speak with me so she had me following her all around the dealership looking for him - all the while carrying that MSR out in front of me.

In neither case did anyone say anything or even raise an eyebrow.

Vermont may have its shortcomings but over-reaction to firearms doesn't appear to be one of them.

BigDinVT said:

I could feel my shirt hike up over the pistol I had in an IWB holster in the back of my jeans to the point where I was becoming really uncomfortable. I felt sure someone would call me (or LE) out for brandishing.

Click to expand...

Inadvertent exposure is not brandishing.

Mainsail said:

Inadvertent exposure is not brandishing.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you, inadvertent exposure is also in the eyes of the beholder.

What one may be charged with is very often based on what was reported. Remember...our daily life isn't being recorded to the detail required to objectively catch everything we do so it can be reviewed later. (At least not yet...I think...)

If you know the gun is being made visible because of your motions and you simply don't care, or don't care enough to do anything differently, is it really inadvertent?

bsctov, you must have been printing like mad. One of the first things you learn when you start carrying concealed is that the vast majority of people are oblivious. You think you're printing, or that your holster clips are showing, etc., but nobody notices. One of the next things you learn is that with proper equipment, really good concealment isn't that hard...and by really good, I mean, nobody's going to notice or find it even if they're looking, unless they pat you down or use a metal detector.

njl said:

bsctov, you must have been printing like mad. One of the first things you learn when you start carrying concealed is that the vast majority of people are oblivious. You think you're printing, or that your holster clips are showing, etc., but nobody notices. One of the next things you learn is that with proper equipment, really good concealment isn't that hard...and by really good, I mean, nobody's going to notice or find it even if they're looking, unless they pat you down or use a metal detector.

Click to expand...

The first part, IMO, is also in part because people almost never say anything even if and when they do notice. Why would they?

The second part...depends very much on the size of handgun and your clothing. There's only so much gun you can actually conceal from a half-aware observe without cool weather clothing.

Warp said:

If you know the gun is being made visible because of your motions and you simply don't care, or don't care enough to do anything differently, is it really inadvertent?

Click to expand...

Then I wonder why the OP lied and tried to give the cute response when asked, if he simply did not care?

Funny how so many are quick to defend the failed attempt to conceal a weapon with every excuse in the book, and just as quick to condemn the observant little old lady that outed it. Seems in a SHTF scenario, she would be the one more likely to survive. Awareness of a pending situation gets you outta one before you need the gun. Just as I did in my first post, my kudos goes to her, not to the response given to her......and that is what the opening post seems to be about. Just how clever the OP thought his response was. As in, "aren't I clever?". Nope.....if you were so clever, you wouldn't have needed the response. If you did not care, you wouldn't have needed the response. Since the response was as unique as the old "I lost all my firearms in a tragic boating accident!", it did not seem that clever to me. Maybe it's just me, since I'm old, and I can identify with the old lady, I see no humor when someone makes a smartazz comment insulting my intelligence to cover their ineptness.

It did remind me of an incident a few years back when .22 ammo was scarce as hen's teeth. I was in the sporting goods section of our local WalMart when I overheard a young man tell his friend "Hey, they finally got some .22 in, I need to get some!" and he starts to ring the little bell on the counter for a clerk. I noticed the clerk, a middle age woman on her hands and knees stocking a bottom shelf, react to the bell and start to get up. As she was getting up the young man continued to ring the bell until she arrived at the counter and asked him what he wanted. He told her he wanted the maximum limit of three boxes of .22. She then asked him if that was all and he replied "yes". As she was checking him out the little sign came up on the cash register with the question "Is this for a rifle or a handgun?". When the clerk asked him, he turned to his buddy, smiled and then replied...."for a machine gun!". She quickly took the ammo off the counter and said "sorry, wrong answer!" and put the ammo back in the case. When the young man complained, she told him the policy was to ask the question and if one suspected the customer was not telling the truth, the policy was to refuse the sale. As he walked away, she turned to me, smiled.

Speaking only for Washington, where I live and know the law, poorly concealed is not inept. There is NOTHING in the law that specifies how concealed your pistol needs to be. They cannot take your CPL because you failed to conceal 'enough' or if you failed to conceal at all. The police cannot detain you for poor concealment, and if they or someone else notices you poorly concealing, the assumption is that you are legally concealing (according to the Courts), thus they cannot even demand that you produce your CPL and prove you are lawfully concealing.

It's just another accessory no different than your watch (which may be concealed by your sleeve) or a hat. I personally believe that polite is greatly preferred when discussing firearms, so depending on the tone of the asker, it only needs to be answered, (truthfully) yes, or with a simple statement that you choose not to answer. Little old ladies, kids, cops, those two answers have worked for me since 2005, whether I was carrying openly, concealed, indifferently, or not at all.