Any open carry jurisdictions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So I think if I understand this correctly there is no perfect answer but we're choosing the lesser of the evils and hoping the person carrying is not an idiot or truly new to guns. I can live with that.
 
wickedspring, I do want everyone to see my sidearm. I open carry for two reasons that require my sidearm to be seen:

One, so that shop owners can see me spending money in their shops while carrying openly. I want them to remember a well mannered, peaceable man spending lots of money while carrying.

Shop owners are, generally, very politically active. Next time a gun law comes up, I want that shop owner to remember me and my fistfull of money.

Same goes for other citizens I encounter. We need people to see guns as not just something they see on TV, associated with Bad News, but as things they see in real life, associated with boring events like Some Guy Shopping and Nothing Happening.

Two, for the conversations I have with people that start out with "I didn't know you could do that." Conversations that end with people knowing more about their rights, and maybe leaving with a name of someone to get some training from, or a gun shop who will help them pick out a suitable firearm. These conversations make my day. My week. They're the whole point of carrying openly, really. Education.

It's not all about self defense. If open carry were dangerous to me (I don't think it is, but even if), I would do it anyhow, for these reasons. There's a PR side to this campaign we're in.
 
I see your guys's points. I just found out something interesting, and verified with my local PD. My state is an open carry state even to include all cities. Probably one of the few capitol cities as such.
 
Do you think that the guns should remain holstered in public at all times unless being pulled to use them? I wonder if that would render our whole argument moot, since it allows for our self defense and the ownership and carrying.
Click to expand...

WOW. There may be a huge oversight in understanding here. YES -- A gun on your person while in public is a defensive tool AND IT STAYS PUT IN THE HOLSTER, absolutely, at all times, no exceptions.

Touching it, fooling with it, or, for heaven's sake, DRAWING it (without the perceived immediate need for its use) are DANGEROUS, idiotic, amateurish (juvenile), and quite often justifiably ILLEGAL. If your hand moves to your gun you've just sent a VERY loud and clear message to all around you. You might not have intended to threaten, but everyone in sight of you picked up on your body language.

The act of drawing attention to your gun, be it by drawing it, flashing it from under your cover garment (if CCW) or by placing a hand on it, can be seen as "brandishing" your weapon. This is an offensive act with the intent to intimidate or threaten, and it can quickly get you facing criminal charges.

Someone having an "AD/ND" in a public place pretty much deserves getting the book thrown at them, because -- except in a million-to-one case of gross failure and malfunction of the basic mechanics of the firearm -- they had to be handling the gun in some way to get it to fire.

(Some folks will chime in with the "public bathroom" question of having to handle it to keep it off the floor or from view/snatch from the next stall, but that argument should fall apart when you consider that there is still no reason for the gun to leave the holster. And there's the occasional dude who can't remember to keep his keys out of the pocket with his J-frame and somehow manages to set off that 12-lb. trigger with his house key. This is just idiocy in motion.)

If you've left your property, and aren't at a range, KEEP YOUR D@MN HANDS OFF OF YOUR GUN! There, no problems! :)

-Sam
 
Anyone so dangerous or unstable that they can't be trusted with a firearm, should be in a mental institution, a prison, or dead. Restricting their right to own or carry a firearm is just spitting in the wind.
Click to expand...

Whoa pardners! At the risk of going off-thread for a moment: As the father of a young man with a serious mental illness, when I read a comment like that, I have to say something.

My son is intelligent, talented, big-hearted, does not have a mean bone in his body, and has never assaulted anyone. BUT...because he has been committed involuntarily several times to a psych hospital, he can never legally own a firearm. I’m fine with that – and he seems to be as well. He also does not have a driver’s license or car – and I’m fine with that too. Even though he is not violent, I’ve seen how completely delusional and out of touch he can get when he goes off his meds. He does OK when he takes his meds, but there is no predicting when he might discontinue them. So for that reason, I don’t want him - or others like him – to possess a gun - or a car.

That does NOT mean he should be in "a mental institution, prison, or dead."
 
rainbowbob, I didn't intend any offense.

As far as I'm concerned; if your son doesn't have any history of violence, I'd sooner err on the side of your son retaining all of his rights than lock him up and throw away the key. He is not what I would consider so dangerous that he needs to be removed from society.

He obviously probably shouldn't own a gun, but IMHO that's a matter best left between him and his doctors. Laws aren't going to help.
 
No offense taken, Jesse - just wanted to get in my $0.02.

As far as erring on the side of my son's civil rights: If you've ever had an intimate relationship with a person that at times wouldn't know the difference between a gun and a garden hoe - you might feel differently.

Fortunately, that and the driver's license has never been an issue. He seems to know without anyone having to tell him that neither is a good idea. But I do know others - friends of my son - that have had firearms and should not have. Absolutely, positively - no ifs, ands, or buts. I would argue that laws can and do help in cases like that by restricting sales and possession.
 
rainbowbob said:
But I do know others - friends of my son - that have had firearms and should not have. Absolutely, positively - no ifs, ands, or buts. I would argue that laws can and do help in cases like that by restricting sales and possession.
Click to expand...

If they're positively that dangerous, I'd argue that they probably don't belong in society at large.

As far as laws helping, I've yet to see any form of prohibition that worked. If they can't keep heroin out of prisons, they sure as heck can't stop someone bent on getting a gun from succeeding. Laws may stop or slow a few people who shouldn't have them, but even then the cost to everyone else's freedom is high.

Having good families & friends, good doctors, access to good medications, and scrupulous gun dealers will do more to protect the mentally ill and society; for less societal cost; than any set of laws.

BTW, I applaud your son for his self-knowledge and prudence.
 
Yes---If you are a resident of my state you can carry open without a ccdw license. You need the license to carry concealed. BUT--They say now that we have ccdw licenses they don’t want us to carry open---it seems to excite the natives.
 
If they're positively that dangerous, I'd argue that they probably don't belong in society at large.
Click to expand...

The thing is, many persons with serious mental illness only become dangerous when they are off their meds and are paranoid and psychotic. Better access to treatment - including mandated treatment when it is clearly evident they will not be able to function safely without it - is the best way to protect us all. But a person that is periodically psychotic between periods of stability should not (in my opinion) be able to purchase a firearm when they are well that they will still have in their possession when they relapse. I think the law can play a role in keeping firearms out of the hands of those that should not possess them - although of course it is no more fool-proof than any other form of prohibition.
 
I've been noodling on this problem of our family members who are sick or aging or disabled. I do sincerely believe that any free--non instititutionalized--man deserves all his rights. And yet there are some of us who are being cared for by their family, who are not wards of the state, and yet cannot safely handle the duties of armed self defense, or voting, or etc.

What to do?

Rather than make laws restricting their rights, let the family be responsible for them, as they already are. Who knows better what the person can and can do than those helping take care of him? Let them, and not the state, decide.
 
My experience with OC has been that if you dress semi-professionally, people assume you're an off-duty LEO. I don't do anything to encourage that assumption, and if asked I will freely admit that I'm not a LEO, but if people want to assume such to make themselves less afraid of my sidearm, that's their prerogative.

And yes, keep your booger hooks away from your gun if you are carrying openly! Make sure you have a secure holster, so you won't have to suddenly grab the gun to keep it from falling out, which could be interpreted as you trying to draw on someone.
 
I'm a 23 year old student with longish hair. I don't dress like a hoodlum, but I don't generally dress professionally or in business casual either. The few times my semi-concealed carry weapon has been spotted, people ask me if I'm an off duty cop anyway.

I am CLEARLY not LEO or military, but people who see me with a gun automatically assume that I positively must be a cop. It's like that's the only way their minds can manage not to panic upon seeing an armed citizen.
 
Resqu2, the way you phrased your post makes me wonder. Why do you feel you need to OC when you dine out in SW Virginia? I never thought that part of the state had an elevated risk. For that matter, Northern Virginia is low risk. Maybe I read your post wrong.
 
The only problem with OC I could see is if a robbery or other high-profile crime were taking place, the police might have a mind to take you out thinking you were one of the suspected criminals.
Click to expand...
Only by a very illogical officer.
A person with a concealed carry license is more likely to be suspect if there is bulge from an object seen by responding officers, or even someone not carrying with a cell phone, or other item in a pocket than someone open carrying.

Criminals carry thier firearms concealed for the same reason many law abiding citizens do. It draws little attention and it keeps others from knowing they are carrying.

Someone open carrying with a holstered firearm is far less likely to actualy be the criminal. This is because the criminal will either have concealed the weapon and be attempting to get away, ditched the weapon, or still have it out ready for use (much like someone with a concealed permit.) Hiding thier weapon and not being seen with it while mixed with the public is generaly a priority of a criminal unless they are in the process of using it. They wish to remain inconspicous and are often prohibited persons or in possession of a stolen firearm.

So odds really are against someone who is open carrying, with a holstered firearm being responsible for a violent crime that had just transpired when officers arrive. People that open carry are simply not your average violent criminal. (Now the police may actualy be called on them for other reasons pertaining to the firearm, but that is different.) Open Carry is counter productive to criminal activities in general.

So it could happen, but would most likely be by a rookie cop that didn't know any better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Open Carry Etiquette
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
D
  • Locked
What would wild west gunfighters carry? Just for fun.
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
Blarelli
B
R
  • Locked
Concealed Carry Permit without Carrying?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Coronach
C
T
  • Locked
Permit yes/no?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
4K
GEM
G
N
  • Locked
When concealed carry becomes open carry
Replies
16
Views
2K
Autolycus
A
Back
Top