For those of us who live in an open carry state

Status
Not open for further replies.
Same things I used before my State was open carry.

That said, I am all for the right to, even though I don't think it's a good idea.
 
Mousegun: a video years ago shows a black guy attacked from behind in Florida.

A muscular white guy (a hero in his own mind) had seen the black guy adjusting his concealed carry gun while getting out of his car. The black guy was calmly walking into a WalMart and was hit fairly hard from behind, from 6 o'clock.

Being Florida, the attacker was probably a New England transplant with no idea about legal carry guns (he first could have asked him about legal carry, from a safe distance). Such a stupid attacker might have been sued over that after injuring him during the nasty struggle on the ground.

Some of you must have seen this video plastered onto the main Youtube news page, maybe ten years ago. Or the video was linked to other carry videos.
 

For those of us who live in an open carry state​

What is your e.d.c.? At home I usually wear an El Paso holster & gunbelt with a single-action Colt or Colt clone. I can't get used to Kydex for some reason.

In keeping with the question at hand in the original starter post. My choice of EDC is a 3" 1911 type semi-automatic pistol. While we have "open carry" I choose to carry my EDC (Everyday Carry) gun concealed.

Without expressing any personal opinions on open verse concealed this is as simple as it gets. I could get into reasoning but the thread starter never asked so I won't bother going down that road or rabbit hole.

Thank You and have a lovely THR day. :)

Ron
 
Without joining the OC/CC debate, I will point out that the newly enacted Permitless Carry law, here in SC, provides that the mere presence of a firearm does not justify a stop without a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a crime has been or is being committed.
 
Without joining the OC/CC debate, I will point out that the newly enacted Permitless Carry law, here in SC, provides that the mere presence of a firearm does not justify a stop without a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a crime has been or is being committed.
It's the same way in a lot of states, but that's not going to stop law enforcement from stopping or the general public from dailing 911 (then L.E. stops you). You still maybe harassed, will have to follow orders, and will have zero recourse after the fact.
 
PA's open carry is kind of silly really. And if you think about it, assuming those doing it even know, it causes unnecessary administrative handling, which just makes things more dangerous if you have to constantly unload and load getting in and out of your car.

And then there's Philly, where you still need the permit, open carry or not.
I agree 100%! At least in PA it's easy to get your permit, then you can carry concealed or open without the hassle.
 
Used to open carry on the way to and from work - 200 miles of rural Nevada. More comfortable and figured rural Nevada is an armed camp anyway.
Retired a few years ago, moved to Kansas. Keep it concealed now for the most part since very seldom get out of town. I may uncover it in town while driving but cover up when I get out of the car.
I prefer to keep a low profile.
 
Just means your not as aware of your surroundings as you think you are.
Neither are you. I guarantee it.

Or like the cop in Las Cruces, did something stupid.
You don't have to make a stupid mistake all you need to do is make a mistake.

A member said something in post 71 about a customer standing in line at Little Caesars when two thieves just walked in the store, stuck a gun to his head and took his gun.

What excessively stupid thing that was unique from what all other open carriers do?
 
It's the same way in a lot of states, but that's not going to stop law enforcement from stopping or the general public from dailing 911 (then L.E. stops you). You still maybe harassed, will have to follow orders, and will have zero recourse after the fact.
From Guidance sent by State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to law enforcement:

"Possession of a firearm alone is NOT a reason to stop an individual. To make a stop,
there must be reasonable and articulable suspicion a crime has occurred. Law
enforcement officers cannot conduct a stop solely because a firearm is visible."
 
I dislike Kydex holsters, too. Need a fork lift to get the gun out.

Colorado's a technically open carry State but as noted before, that don't mean diddlysquat nohow around the urban areas.

I'm reminded of the old joke about the 911 operator getting a hysterical call about a man walking down the street carrying a gun. "Yes, Ma'am, I understand, but what is he doing that's illegal?"

Concealed permitless carry used to be authorized when actually involved in the licensed act of hunting. Don't know if that's still the case. With the State turning ultraviolet, I'm surprised hunting itself is still legal.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
From Guidance sent by State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to law enforcement:

"Possession of a firearm alone is NOT a reason to stop an individual. To make a stop,
there must be reasonable and articulable suspicion a crime has occurred. Law
enforcement officers cannot conduct a stop solely because a firearm is visible."
As I stated, other states have similar laws, but it's not going to stop law enforcement from still stopping and temporarily detaining you. There are even dozens of YouTube "audit" channels that purposely stand outside of business and police stations video taking or who go open carrying purposely waiting for law enforcement to to make contact so that they can lecture them, in vain, about their Constitutional rights. There are open carriers who have had cops called on them and L.E. will still show up and interrogate and ID you. I've seen, in more cases than I can remember, law enforcement use mental gymnastics as justification to get around laws as well, so they'll come up with a "reasonable and articulable" to stop you one way or another.
 
Last edited:
Rights cannot be taken away because of flagrant misbehavior by a minority of the citizenry.
Of course they can. As Styx noted, all it takes is for the majority to pressure their representatives, or to vote in new representatives to get the laws changed. Even the constitution can be changed with a sufficient majority.
In FL, since we don't have open carry. You can get arrested.
That is one reason I support the right to open carry. And it is also one reason why this statement is false:
A right not exercised -- however infrequently -- is useless.
Even if I never plan to open carry in public, it's quite useful and comforting to me to know that if I unintentionally leave my property without covering my gun, or expose it in public unintentionally, I'm not going to suffer any legal consequences.
Just means your not as aware of your surroundings as you think you are.
There's no way to go through life without ever letting anyone get close enough to you to grab an openly carried gun. And even if that actually were possible, it's no defense against someone seeing your gun and committing an armed robbery to take it.

As stated, I'm in favor of open carry and I do open carry in certain circumstances, but it absolutely comes with some very serious disadvantages. Pretending that they don't exist is extremely inadvisable.
 
I'd said -
Rights cannot be taken away because of flagrant misbehavior by a minority of the citizenry.
@JohnKSa said Of course they can. As Styx noted, all it takes is for the majority to pressure their representatives, or to vote in new representatives to get the laws changed. Even the constitution can be changed with a sufficient majority.

I'm sure you (and @Styx really knew that I was speaking philosophically, toward the ideal, rather than the pathetic reality we now face. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous, shame.
And it is also one reason why this statement is false:
Even if I never plan to open carry in public, it's quite useful and comforting to me to know that if I unintentionally leave my property without covering my gun, or expose it in public unintentionally, I'm not going to suffer any legal consequences.
And once again, I was speaking to the fact that governance today stands ready at a moment's notice to rob citizens of their natural rights, ready to pounce once it's noted that the citizens have become complacent or skittish about actually exercising their rights.

Many are trying to simplistically frame the narrative simply as open carry has too many disadvantages, thus is not necessary and there's no real reason to fight for it, when the real argument should be, let's preserve this right, not give it up, because it is part and parcel a big part of the RKBA. If one maintains that it's not, one is willingly ceding portions of the RKBA to the other side.

NO ONE here has pretended that the disadvantages of open carry don't exist. Certainly, it's sub-optimal in most circumstances. There's no need to keep repeating this.

I really am starting to think that some here are just fine with picking and choosing which parts of the right to keep and bear arms they want to defend.
 
I'm sure you (and @Styx really knew that I was speaking philosophically, toward the ideal, rather than the pathetic reality we now face.
It's sometimes hard to get shades of meaning or sarcasm from the written word. I assumed you were speaking literally about reality.
I really am starting to think that some here are just fine with picking and choosing which parts of the right to keep and bear arms they want to defend.
Well, if you are, you are doing so in spite of clear statements that the arguments against open carry are not about rights but about practicality. Sort of ironic that you would chide others for failing to realize that you were trying to speak philosophically instead of about reality in your posts while at the same time blatantly contradicting what others are plainly saying.
NO ONE here has pretended that the disadvantages of open carry don't exist....There's no need to keep repeating this.
If you actually read the thread, I think you would see that there is actually not consensus about the disadvantages of open carry. In fact, if you read my post, I responded to someone who was arguing against a disadvantage that someone pointed out.
...thus is not necessary and there's no real reason to fight for it,...
This is a strawman. No one is saying this. This is something you have made up.
 
Well, if you are, you are doing so in spite of clear statements that this is not about rights but about practicality. Sort of ironic that you would chide others for failing to realize that you were trying to speak philosophically instead of about reality in your posts while at the same time blatantly contradicting what others are plainly saying.
In the words of @Kleanbore, you missed me there... went through my previous posts in the thread, and it was clear to me at least, that I was mostly speaking of rights.

You did read my posts #52, and #65, right? Yes, in my posts #24 and #25, I did address the practicality aspect.

Oh, and heck yeah, I was blatantly contradicting what others were "plainly" saying.

It's pretty pathetic that so many on this forum are so willing to throw the few folks in favor of open carry under the bus. Thought we were all on the same side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top