OC vs. CC Best PR move

[coolluke01]

I would have some issue with the idea that OC helps PR. In MN we can open carry. In my Carry class they told us stories about some who have OC'ed. It tends to draw attention. Not positive attention. Someone making me or seeing my gun would almost always be negative attention.

I feel that it would be best not to try and desensitize the public, but to avoid negative exposure. The laws are on our side as far as carry is concerned. Why then do we need to keep this issue in the forefront of peoples minds? We, as responsible gun owners, need to do no wrong!

Those that want to impose more restrictions on us as gun owners will see OC in a negative light. No matter how nice of a guy you are. It would take them getting to know you and very possibly going with you to shoot for them to see the level of skill and control you have.

Those that don't really care one way or another tend to get nervous when they see open carry. It is just ignorance on their part. I don't say that with a bad connotation. They simply don't know. We can't educate everyone that sees our OC.

We have the right, in most states, to OC, but is it the best way to preserve our rights in more important areas? Ownership, CC, SD laws. These are just a few that IMHO are more important and can be exercised without extracting negative reactions from the ignorant or biased public.

 

[fallout mike]

I believe there are pros & cons to both. My job has me in the worst neighborhoods nearly everyday. OC is a pro in this case in my opinion. I believe it will and has stopped several attempted robbery, muggings, maybe worse. I may be wrong. Just my opinion.

 

[coolluke01]

I can see the both sides of the tactical issue. But i'm thinking more about the PR question. I'm willing to lose a little speed and gain a tactical surprise element to avoid drawing wrong attention.

 

[HDCamel]

Personal experience with OC is that it often depends on the gun.

If it's black? People get nervous.
If it's plastic? People get nervous.
If it's big? People get nervous.
Blue steel and wood furniture on a medium frame? Nothing, at least, not as much.

I've OCd a SAA occasionally for a while now and the most attention I get are kids who want to know if it's real and adults who just sort of write me off as a cowboy wannabe.

It's all about appearances.

Basically, get yourself a gun that's pretty and nobody will care (except die-hard antis).

 

[fallout mike]

My bad, pr wise I think depends on each individual. If you are nicely dressed and carry yourself in a respectful manner I believe most people will think nothing of it. If you dress like a thug or something not very nice and carry yourself as such you will draw much unwanted attention. Once again, just my opinion.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Nothing here I can see about self defense... moved to Handguns.

 

[Clipper]

I like to go catfishing at night at an unlighted fishing dock/boat ramp. After 10:00pm or so, it's generally deserted except for the occasional carload of kids who come out to smoke weed and drink in the parking lot. Over the years everyone who regularly goes out there knows me or about me OCing and I have never been hassled by anybody. Others who go out there alone can't always say the same. Usually it's drunk carloads of kids talking tough, but I've never had a problem at all. In fact, there are some aquaintances who will not fish there at night unless they see my car there.

In general, I OC in warm enough weather to not wear a coat. When the coat goes on, the gun's covered up. In three years, I can count on one hand the number of times I've even been asked about it, and have only had two negative comments, but many 'attaboys'.

 

[CajunBass]

All you people who are against open carry. Who's trying to make you do it?

If you don't want to, don't.

 

[chicharrones]

PR wise, it seems that the open carry events in California backfired by getting open carry in that state outlawed last fall (which took effect just a few days ago).

 

[2wheels]

I've OC'ed (and lazily CC'ed, where my gun is obviously printing or even partially visible) here and there in Northern VA, never had a bad experience. Most people don't seem to notice, the few who do don't care enough to say or do anything. Some people even might think its an airsoft gun, that happened to me once.

I've had a few stares... One lady asked "do you know there's a gun sticking out of your butt? ain't you afraid it's gonna fall out?" (my old XD-SC in an IWB holster, the shirt had slipped over the gun). And one positive comment from a lady who asked if anyone hassled me or my friend (who was also OC'ing at the time) about OC'ing because she had considered doing it herself but was afraid of the negative attention it might draw.

Not too many people have ever seemed nervous once they noticed me carrying a gun, I guess because it's in an actual holster and I'm not doing anything to hide it. I may or may not be "well dressed" but I darned well make sure I'm polite and respectful to everyone around me. So, what's there to be afraid of? I'm going about my business just like everyone else and saying sir and maam while I'm doing it, I may be a curiousity but I doubt most people view me as a threat.

I DID have a friend who had the cops called on him while he was OC'ing in a McDonalds, an obviously anti-carry woman with her child called the cops on him and claimed he was waving his gun around in the restaurant. Thankfully the issue was cleared up on scene without cuffs or guns drawn and once the cops saw the surveillance tapes they threatened to charge the woman with filing a false police report.

So to the OP, which is better for pro-gun/carry PR? I sure don't know. I've never really had a problem OC'ing, but I generally prefer to CC because honestly I like to avoid ANY attention when I'm out, positive or negative.

 

[Loosedhorse]

PR wise, it seems that the open carry events in California backfired by getting open carry in that state outlawed last fall (which took effect just a few days ago).

+1

Locales will vary, but the possiblity of legislative backlash in some places is now proven. And this was not from "loud, obnoxious" types, and not from loaded guns.

 

[Sam1911]

As a purely public-relations discussion I think there are two primary, conflicting, possibilities at play.

1) Seeing your openly-carried gun alarms someone which leads them to think negatively about armed citizens and possibly work to get the law changed in negative ways.

2) Seeing you openly carrying a gun interests and enlightens someone which leads them to think positively about armed citizens and might influence them to do the same, and/or support politicians and/or legislative efforts which protect and promote that right.

Obviously, absent the very few folks who will take the time to speak up to us in favor of or opposition to our openly carried firearm, we cannot know how many of either set we influence today, this week, or ever, though we have to assume that some of both categories have been affected.

Also obviously there are some locations in which we assume one reaction will be more prevalent than others, though of course we can't know for certain. (CA -vs.- AZ, for example. MD -vs.- VA or PA, for another.)

I imagine that the net positive or negative of any of us doing this is actually completely unmeasurable, and is probably in reality not exactly what any of us believe it to be.

And, of course, there are other factors around the issue which will influence each of us to, and/or not to, do so, completely beside the PR angle, no matter whether we believe that PR works for us or against us.

We have the right, in most states, to OC, but is it the best way to preserve our rights in more important areas?

Again, does it preserve or harm our rights? We really don't know. We have several minor points of data, ranging from the broad and unique situation of CA, to the daily "Yays" and "Nays" we might receive personally, but nothing that we could use to form more than a personal gut feeling.

Ownership, CC, SD laws. These are just a few that IMHO are more important and can be exercised without extracting negative reactions from the ignorant or biased public.

I certainly don't see that gun ownership and/or self-defense laws can be exercised without negative reactions from the public. History is jam packed with such negative reactions. Does OC, by itself, represent a greater or lesser influencer than various other "exercises" of rights? I don't know. It may bring the issue to minds of individuals who otherwise would not be thinking of RKBA at all.

That might be a bad thing. That might be a good thing. It might boil down to a question of, do we want to be invisible to "the public" so that they only hear about, see, or think about guns when the nightly news has a reason to put a gun up on their TV screen? Or do we want to push guns into the public's view in positive or neutral situations so that they have more than one mental image to choose from when then think "gun?"

My wife used to hate mice. Then we moved into a very old farmhouse in the country. There we unpleasant moments for her in the beginning. At this point, she's seen so many, including the various visitors who've ended up as my kids' temporary pets in an aquarium next to the kitchen table, that her pulse doesn't even lift when one goes scampering across the kitchen floor.

Familiarity may just breed acceptance, in ways that hiding and avoidance may not.

And what happens in the short term may not reflect the ultimate destination of our course for the future, either.

 

[316SS]

Quote:
PR wise, it seems that the open carry events in California backfired by getting open carry in that state outlawed last fall (which took effect just a few days ago).
+1

Locales will vary, but the possiblity of legislative backlash in some places is now proven. And this was not from "loud, obnoxious" types, and not from loaded guns.

Evidently, in California, a person's "right" not to feel uncomfortable trumps the right to bear arms. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see this law tested. CCW permits are not issued in the vast majority of California, and I have heard it argued that because unloaded OC was legal, the de facto non-issue of permits did not violate the 2A. I can imagine a test case where it is claimed that the non-issue of CCW permits and the OC ban in combination amount to a 2A violation, especially if the test case was denied a permit in their home county.

Edit: to stay on the topic of the PR implications of OC, I would like to think that the irrational justifications for the OC ban in California ring false with many Californians, hopefully spurring people to educate themselves on the topic. That's likely naive and overly optimistic.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I have discovered that most anti-open carry sentiment comes from people who have never tried it, and usually from gun restrictive states as well.

I open carry everywhere, every day when I am out and about. I have open carried in places such as Pike's Place Market in Seattle and SEATAC International Airport. I open carry a Taurus PT-145 with stainless steel slide in a Fobus Paddle Holster with passive retention, so basically everything of the gun behind the trigger guard is completely exposed. I open carry in clothes that are completely average - usually jeans with no holes, something just "above" a t-shirt like a pullover polo shirt or button up western style shirt and tennis shoes.

In my experiences, and those who I have met with who open carry every day agree, open carry is a great public relations tool, at least in Washington State. It provides Joe Public with the visual image of normal everyday Americans doing normal everyday American activies who just happen to wear a gun as a tool for self protection. If Joe Public doesn't SEE us doing this, then all that they will see is the anti-gun image provided to them by the Brady Campaign and anti-gun media.

In day to day life, about 98% of the public population has no reaction at all to the gun, probably don't even notice it. About 1.5% have a positive reaction to it. I've gotten everything from verbal thank you's to thumbs up signs, to people asking questions about why and legality and going away with a more positive idea/attitude than before. Only about .5% of the public that we encounter in Washington have negative reactions. 4 out of 5 of those negative reactions come from concealed carry only "pro-gun" people that tell us we should cover up our gun.

I think a major issue we have in "gun politics" is the fact the we, as gun owners, are so willing to treat the gun like it has some inherently evil properties about it. All this talk of telling a police officer about your gun during a traffic stop when not required to by law because it will make them feel better, talk about asking for permission to bring your concealed carried gun into a friend or relative's home when visiting.

I think a lot of positive PR would happen if we simply treated the gun for what it is - an inanimate tool incapable of evil on it's own that has a specific use just like the jack in your car or cell phone in your pocket. I wish that we would quit believing that the gun somehow has evil attached to it as an object, which is what the Brady Campaign has been shouting from the rooftop for decades. Treat your gun like an expensive cell phone - take sensible personal precautions against it being stolen/falling into the wrong hands and other than that treat it no differently than your cell phone. I don't feel the need to hide my cell phone away because soccer mom by be upset at the sight of it, I don't feel the need to tell a police officer or friend about my cell phone at first opportunity, and neither do I feel the need to do those things with my gun, either (unless required to do so by law, of course.)

 

[coolluke01]

My wife used to hate mice. Then we moved into a very old farmhouse in the country. There we unpleasant moments for her in the beginning. At this point, she's seen so many, including the various visitors who've ended up as my kids' temporary pets in an aquarium next to the kitchen table, that her pulse doesn't even lift when one goes scampering across the kitchen floor.

What I don't like is that the mouse got screamed at and killed many times before it became a non issue. That tends to lead to hysteria.

If we truly don't know if OC creates more negative exposure than positive, I think we can agree that the media tends to show the negative side more often, then maybe we should very carefully OC. I know many time OC could be very acceptable. But we truly do have to be mindful of the what we do any how it effects people. Offended or upset people make laws to fix what bothered them. It's not right but the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I like the idea that pretty guns are ok. It's a very true statement. It's like sexual harassment. If the person is attractive they can get away with much more than if they were creepy and repulsive. This is not from personal experience. Look up the Tom Brady SNL skit.

That experience in McDonalds was a negative one. Sure the truth came out in the end. But what impact did it have on all those watching? Did they all stick around to see the full culmination of the events?

I do think we are going to have to give some. I hope not. I like having the ability to OC. It also means that I'm not gonna get in trouble if I have a wardrobe malfunction. But we have to live with many that don't see things the way we do. That means compromise. I would hope that if push comes to shove we don't loose all carry options over OC.
I think the best way to avoid pushing and shoving is to "live peaceably with all man inasmuch as it has to do with you."

I don't hate to OC'ers. And I don't hate the OC practice. I'm just concerned about the image.

Unfortunately some that OC do it for attention. I mean to say that many are looking for conflict and a fight. That is going to hurt us! :banghead: Many see blatant in your face OC as an act of aggression. People call the cops when someone is aggressive toward them.

 

[bergmen]

Evidently, in California, a person's "right" not to feel uncomfortable trumps the right to bear arms. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see this law tested. CCW permits are not issued in the vast majority of California... (snip)

Don't mean to go off-topic but 41 out of the 58 California counties are "shall issue". The non-issuing counties are much in the minority, however they hold the majority of the population.

Dan

 

[Loosedhorse]

Don't mean to go off-topic but 41 out of the 58 California counties are "shall issue".

You mean that state law changes from county to county? I don't think so.

I think you mean that the whole state is "may issue", and some Sheriff's Depts. act as "shall issue" under their current Sheriff, and other's don't.

I used to live in Alameda Co. I'm pretty sure they were "shall issue"--as long as I had "good cause", an "OK" from a mental health professional and a $1 million surety bond first (so said the "Licensing information officer").

 

[guyfromohio]

I don't carry for PR or to be an activist. I am an activist to preserve my rights, but I don't wear the giant belt buckle or the bumper stickers.

 

[316SS]

41 out of the 58 California counties are "shall issue".

Can you please cite your source for that statement? I don't believe any California counties are shall issue, because that would be a matter of state law. Some counties issue permits, but always at the whim of the Sheriff or Police Chief, and many set the bar very high. What I should have said originally is that the majority of the population of California has very little chance of obtaining a permit to CC.

I think this relates to the topic of this thread. Loosedhorse correctly identified the potential for legislative backlash to open carry. But if you have no access to a CCW permit, as is true of the vast majority of Californians, you could still OC. Prior to January 1st, it was not a question of CC versus OC for most Californians, but a choice between OC and going unarmed. As things now stand, most have no legal way to carry a handgun for personal protection.

Here's an interesting question: If OC demonstrations in California led to the current ban, and if the current ban is tested in court and eventually overturned (just go with me here for the sake of argument) as a 2A violation, would that be good, bad, or indifferent from a PR perspective?

 

[Strykervet]

Personal experience with OC is that it often depends on the gun.

If it's black? People get nervous.
If it's plastic? People get nervous.
If it's big? People get nervous.
Blue steel and wood furniture on a medium frame? Nothing, at least, not as much.

I've OCd a SAA occasionally for a while now and the most attention I get are kids who want to know if it's real and adults who just sort of write me off as a cowboy wannabe.

It's all about appearances.

Basically, get yourself a gun that's pretty and nobody will care (except die-hard antis).

Yeah, that does illustrate a point. Appearance. Perception. If I were to carry one my Glocks in drop leg, I'd get alot more scrutiny than the guy with SAA. But take us both to the range and we'd probably have a lot in common, a lot to talk about. And hey, the guy with the Glock may even be cooler headed and safer, you never know.

I tend to conceal, but I don't go through great pains to prevent it from showing if it does. I never get looks, but that is probably because I'm really focused on the price of ham hocks or talking to my wife about dinner.

But when these anti groups try to ban open carry, like they want to do here, I also make it a point to open carry in protest. Basically, I only open carry to protest, because I see banning of OC the next step to banning carry outright. Protest this way raises other concerns, because it does nothing to change the anti's minds but does fuel their irrational reasoning. However, we have little else at our disposal --exercise the rights or lose them. I guess what they don't understand is that a lot of folks open carry in the woods but not on the streets. They wouldn't know this though in their groups where they meet to complain about us.

Then there are folks that just like to open carry. I have nothing against it, but I sure wish they'd take it upon themselves to wear retention holsters. It fires me up to see some guy in an animated conversation or being focused on the price of ham hocks with what amounts to an unsecured weapon on his hip. I think this is stupid, not ignorant, just stupid. I guess in small towns in Montana it isn't such a big deal, but open carry in Seattle without retention isn't the best idea.

On the other hand, the only cases we've had of unsecured weapons being stolen were cop weapons. In one case, the Seattle chief or somebody like that parked downtown to buy Christmas presents and left an unsecured weapon in his unlocked police car --it wasn't there when he got back. Another left a rifle on a car and drove off. And those aren't the only ones.

So either out of sight out of mind, or secure that weapon. Please. And take an anti shooting if you can. Coke cans and a 10/22 bring smiles to faces of all ages.

 

[Lawdawg45]

This is a hot and emotional topic for some, but for me open carry is a tactical blunder. Here is one interesting note on the subject......in my 30 years as a LEO I can't recall a single Officer I knew or worked with that would open carry off duty.

LD

 

[Sam1911]

That's fine, but we're trying to stick to the PR angle here.

 

[bergmen]

Can you please cite your source for that statement? I don't believe any California counties are shall issue, because that would be a matter of state law. Some counties issue permits, but always at the whim of the Sheriff or Police Chief, and many set the bar very high. What I should have said originally is that the majority of the population of California has very little chance of obtaining a permit to CC.

I think this relates to the topic of this thread. Loosedhorse correctly identified the potential for legislative backlash to open carry. But if you have no access to a CCW permit, as is true of the vast majority of Californians, you could still OC. Prior to January 1st, it was not a question of CC versus OC for most Californians, but a choice between OC and going unarmed. As things now stand, most have no legal way to carry a handgun for personal protection.

Here's an interesting question: If OC demonstrations in California led to the current ban, and if the current ban is tested in court and eventually overturned (just go with me here for the sake of argument) as a 2A violation, would that be good, bad, or indifferent from a PR perspective?

Here is my source (they use the term "will issue" which is actually more correct than "shall issue"):

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

Certainly you are correct that California is a "discretionary issue" state. It is commonly accepted that certain counties have a "shall issue" policy based on local politics. Obviously, this position is subject to the political limate and a state "shall issue" mandate is absolutely necessary.

The only county I can realistically comment on (although the website at CalCCW - http://www.calccw.com/Forums/ - has a thorough, well researched database on this issue) is Mendocino since I live here. From my experience, meeting and talking with the County District Attorneys (several of them) and the elected County Sheriffs (three of them) that it would be political suicide to even slightly utter the potential of being discretionary issue around here. I served for a time on the Mendocino County Farm Bureau PAC and "shall issue" CCW was a mandatory position to be considered for Bureau recommendation for Sheriff and DA.

Other rural counties are in a similar position.

The political landscape in California is so poisoned that even though legal challenges may be successful, I would not trust "the machine" to honor it and could very well motivate the electorate to go even further down the road against RKBA. Just my opinion. UOC backfired horribly and the political forces were very easily motivated to pass the current law, being little in political risk for those in power to do so. A firestorm would likely erupt if pro-gun positions were advocated legislatively.

My personal opinion is that UOC is a horrible armed defensive tactic and only has any potential value as a political or position statement. I have never seen UOC even hinted at as an alternative form of an armed defensive tactic, written or spoken of, in any authoritative resource. I would never do it no matter what the state law says or where in California I lived. Again, my opinion.

Personally, the most appropriate legal path that could result in a succesful challenge of the UOC ban would be to require statewide "shall issue" as an interpretation of the recent SCOTUS decision on 2a.

IMO, the Cal DOJ would marshall an unprecedented massive legal position in opposing this if it gets to this. The MSM (both print and broadcast) would line up behind the DOJ without question and provide a landscape that would defy description as to the assault on 2a.

Dan

 

[Nushif]

I think a major issue we have in "gun politics" is the fact the we, as gun owners, are so willing to treat the gun like it has some inherently evil properties about it. All this talk of telling a police officer about your gun during a traffic stop when not required to by law because it will make them feel better, talk about asking for permission to bring your concealed carried gun into a friend or relative's home when visiting.

I think a lot of positive PR would happen if we simply treated the gun for what it is - an inanimate tool incapable of evil on it's own that has a specific use just like the jack in your car or cell phone in your pocket. I wish that we would quit believing that the gun somehow has evil attached to it as an object, which is what the Brady Campaign has been shouting from the rooftop for decades. Treat your gun like an expensive cell phone - take sensible personal precautions against it being stolen/falling into the wrong hands and other than that treat it no differently than your cell phone. I don't feel the need to hide my cell phone away because soccer mom by be upset at the sight of it, I don't feel the need to tell a police officer or friend about my cell phone at first opportunity, and neither do I feel the need to do those things with my gun, either (unless required to do so by law, of course.)

I think this kind of mirrors my thoughts. I don't regularly OC, personally, as the town ordinance here forbids it, so I carry concealed to mildly concealed. But frankly the issue with OC is largely within our own community.
We are here talking about tactical blunders, PR images, what the public thinks, you name it ... but I am pretty certain from personal experience are more angry at tasteless bumperstickers, slogany t-shirts, public political tirades and many of the other factors, that are so often associated with OCers.
If suddenly every American who carries a weapon carried it openly on their belt, nobody would blink an eye, I think. But the problem is that the only people who do tend to be less than palatable to a lot of their countrymen as well.
Now, I know every single one here on THR is clearly palatable to the vast majority of Americans, but think about your average OCer and think of why people don't like hanging out with them ... from what I have seen it's usually not the gun. It's the personality. PR isn't about carrying a gun or not. PR is not being a female hygiene product.

 

[316SS]

bergman:

I think we are getting off topic here. My point was simply that an apparent PR failure (the demonstrations that resulted in a California OC ban) might bring about a reckoning that could result in a policy win.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer here. Like the question of tactics, the question of PR is highly dependent on individual circumstances.

In California, no amount of open carry will/would have turned the tide of irrational anti-gun sentiment. The political elite establishment will need to be forced, kicking and screaming, by the Supreme Court to stop violating 2A rights. In other states, lawful, respectful, routine open carry might have more favorable results.