OC vs. CC Best PR move

[coolluke01]

It is very true that we all live in very different places. In Northern MN the population is very strong Democrat, Union, Hunters/outdoors people. This is very different from the state of Washington, Virginia, Florida, and thankfully we're not like California!

I never see people OC here. I only know of one person that has. He was who I referenced in the OP. He was asked very nicely by the management in the local restaurant to CC when in there as it made some people uncomfortable. (Note, this is a place that most all of the Law Enforcement eats. People see guns in there all the time. To say the argument is about the gun is not the right way to look at it. The issue is the person wearing the gun. People are not trusting of others. Someone posted about their cellphone. A cellphone is not something that can be used to kill someone easily. So it isn't a good comparison.) Back to the guy in the restaurant. He refused! He would not have anything to do with abiding by the wishes of those around him. The restaurant still allows him to come in. They haven't put up signs disallowing firearms. But, this was a huge issue to many. Is this how we are going to deal with PR? Use your rights or lose them? Really? I don't have the right to CC because I do it all the time. I have that right because I and those that do have shown that we can be responsible when we do. We won't change the mind of the willfully ignorant. But, we can eliminate much of the cannon fodder they use. Don't be ignorant ourselves. We are our own worst enemy! Courteous, respectful, cautious, and sensitive carry is the best way to protect our rights.

 

[NavyLCDR]

A cellphone is not something that can be used to kill someone easily. So it isn't a good comparison.

Here's the problem. Why do we, even as gun owners, single out guns for special treatment? I can put my gun on the table and my cell phone on the table and without outside influence neither object is going to kill somone.

A person gets a felony DUI or multiple DUI's leading up to a felony. Do we prohibit that person from possessing alcohol? No. Do we require background checks for alcohol because of the number of deaths caused by alcohol? No. Do we say the guy with felony DUI or felony vehicular homicide cannot be in possession or own a vehicle? No. But he can't be in possession of any gun.

A person stabs someone with a knife in a feloneous assault. Yet he can walk into Wal Mart and buy all the knives he wants to. But he can't be in possession of a gun.

Guy writes a bad check big enough to be a felony, but he can't possess a gun.

We propose doing away with background checks for gun purchases and 1/2 of the "pro-gun" community would be as upset as the anti-gun crowd would be. But we don't have background checks required to buy vehicles and alcohol which kill more people every year than guns do.

He was asked very nicely by the management in the local restaurant to CC when in there as it made some people uncomfortable. Back to the guy in the restaurant. He refused! He would not have anything to do with abiding by the wishes of those around him.

What if the guy was asked to leave because he had dark skin and was wearing a turbin on his head and people were uncomfortable? What if the guy prayed to Allah before the meal, and someone overheard and was uncomfortable and he was asked to leave? What if it was because he was black? Or because of a fussy baby? Sure, he had the option to cover the gun up, but why should he because some people were uncomfortable? I've been around a few people that have made me uncomfortable, but short of them doing something illegal I figure they have just as much right to be there as I do.

Really? I don't have the right to CC because I do it all the time. I have that right because I and those that do have shown that we can be responsible when we do.

Let me share a little secret with you, my friend. You don't have the right to carry concealed. In MN you have very little right to carry a gun at all. What you are doing is exercising a privilege that you have paid the government for permission to engange in. Rights don't require the purchase of a ticket to engange in, especially the purchase of a ticket from the government.

We are never going to change this if WE insist that guns, only inanimate objects - tools for a specific purpose, need to be treated completely differently than any other tool.

A concealed carry only guy told me a while back I should cover my gun up, after I held the door open for him and his daughter (5 or 6 years old) to exit a store. I then waited patiently for him to strap his daughter into his jacked-up pickup before opening my car door parked beside him. His daughter commented about the nice police officer that was waiting for them. That's when he told me I should cover up my gun. I simply said, nope, and that was it. My 14 year old stepdaughter said, "You should have told him that you don't have need to cover your gun up. Criminals have to hide their guns and you aren't a criminal."

 

[316SS]

Well said, Navy.

I strongly object to the attitude of "don't rock the boat or we'll 'lose' our rights!"
Here in California, we haven't lost our rights. They are just being violated.

My 14 year old stepdaughter said, "You should have told him that you don't have need to cover your gun up. Criminals have to hide their guns and you aren't a criminal."

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[coolluke01]

I agree with you when you talk about a knife or a car can be used in a way that kills more every year. That's why I said that

To say the argument is about the gun is not the right way to look at it. The issue is the person wearing the gun.

Those in authority are unable to judge a person as to the quality of their character. So we have to control inanimate things. Guns, cars, and alcohol. And yes there are controls in place for all those things. The issue people have however is not tied to guns. It is their fear of what can be done with them. That's why a cellphone is not a good comparison.

If we are going to have a quality discussion I would recommend trying to understand the point i'm trying to make. I never said this man was told to leave. He was never judged due to race or skin color or who he was praying to.

I've been around a few people that have made me uncomfortable, but short of them doing something illegal I figure they have just as much right to be there as I do.

And you don't do anything about it because you are a reasonable person. We should all be more like that. But, not everyone is. We need to understand what we are standing for. Like you rightly said. These are not inalienable Rights. They are "rights" that are extended to us if we follow the rules and do what we are told. Much more of a privilege than a right. So I think we need to see that some are blind to the fact that guns in of them selves are not evil. When someone makes a stink about something we need to make sure that the disagreement stays on topic. They will try and justify their position by trying to shift the topic of disagreement. "your gun makes others uncomfortable." if our answer is "I can do whatever the hell I want. This is my right." We shift the topic from one of ignorance of how guns work and what they truly are. (Inanimate objects) To this guys just being a jerk. Everyone that carries guns must be a jerk. Why do we let jerks like this carry guns. Who knows what they will do.
If our response would be. "hey this is a right that the state has given to us. But, I really don't want to make anyone uncomfortable, I'll leave, remove it, cover it up" etc. This could make a big positive impact on those that are around us. If we surrender our rights people will have less of a drive to rip them from us. We do have recourses to deal with those that try and trample on our rights. In the middle of a restaurant is not the place to do it.

I have come to these conclusions due to training that includes but is not limited to: Law enforcement academy, interpersonal communication, customer relations and hours of talking with friends that are lawyers.

I appreciate everyones input on this topic. And everyone staying on topic.

Anyone with personal experience with conflict or opportunity to educate with CC or OC?

I would like to add that I don't think we all have the same job when it come to how we safeguard our rights. I'm a person that would much rather talk to someone about their reasoning and why they think the way they do. Many others may have a more straightforward approach with desensitizing the public. Or others try to point to the fact that this is simply a tool like any other and should be treated as such.
These are all "right". The difficulty is doing what we do in the most effective way without causing harm to our cause. A local cop told me he felt his main goal was to "Do no wrong" I think this is a good thing to remind ourselves of when we chose how we will carry and how we will interact with the public. I will say that some of the experience that Navy mentioned in an older post did make me consider the benefits of OC.

I hope I don't have the same opinion when it's all said and done. I want to grow and move in my understanding.

 

[NavyLCDR]

coolluke01,

You do understand that by compromising in the way you describe, always catering to those that don't like our guns, is the exact reason that we are in the position we are in now? Where we have to pay for government permission to exercise a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution? Why does it have to be us that compromises? We are the MAJORITY! There are more members of the NRA than there are the Brady Campaign. The anti-gun groups are losing power every day and we need to stop compromising and keep that momentum going.

Now is the perfect time for us to become active. Obama promised that things would change. And they have. He has proven that no matter how much money government throws away, that no matter how many social programs they come up with - that government isn't going to be able to take care of the citizen in any, way shape or form, including self defense.

People are more fed up with government regulation and control now more than ever before. And with government running out of money, police forces downsizing, people are starting to see, oh crap, I'm on my own here!

I agree, when approached about my gun I don't think that "It's my right" is enough of an answer. I like to take the time to explain. I am a paying customer. I am doing nothing different than any other paying customer in this store/restaurant is doing. I am doing nothing illegal. There is no obnoxious odor or sound that I am creating, no nuisance whatsoever. If management would kindly explain that to whomever is uncomfortable, maybe they can keep us both as customers instead of losing me.

But it is time we stopped simply covering up our gun or leaving because somebody is wetting their pants over an object carried in a holster on a belt and that somehow a few millimeters of cloth covering it is supposed to make everything OK. I mean really, is my gun all that scary?

 

[aeriedad]

Living in SC, I don't have a right to OC, so I can't speak much on this from direct experience. Still, I see two "categories," if you will, with regard to the PR angle of OC:

1. Organized events promoting (or protesting proposed restrictions against) OC
2. Personal, everyday OC in everyday situations

My opinion is that neither of these really do much to change minds. They both have value and can be used to advance RKBA, but there is also potential for harming the cause as well.

The benefit of organized OC events is that they can get the issue in the minds of many people, some of whom may consider the issue fairly, filtering out the inevitable media bias. The obvious downside, of course, is that many will believe every biased word of the media.

Personal, everyday OC has the benefit of circumventing the media altogether, but it doesn't get the issue before very many people, at least not quickly. Furthermore, most people won't even notice, and most of those who do may pretend not to notice. Others may notice and report the MWAG, sometimes resulting in a police response.

But sometimes a responsible OC'er can do the cause some good on a personal level. NavyLCDR told a story a couple months ago (post #41 at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=620295&page=2) of how his dinner was interrupted one evening by an officer responding to a MWAG report. Although it didn't go well that evening, I would say there was a generally positive outcome over the next few weeks.

It seems to me that the overall effect of OC is to reinforce the pre-existing opinions of the local community. In some areas, this can work for us; in other areas it works against us. It probably doesn't change very many minds one way or the other, though it may spur some to action in support or opposition where they otherwise may have remained uninvolved.

I appreciate the logic of NavyLCDR's views here, especially with regard to standing up for our rights. Unfortunately, not everyone is as responsible as he is, and a lot of folks just won't look at the issue honestly, no matter how responsible we all are.

I believe everyone should have the option to CC or OC, but in SC we can only CC, and only when the state issues a permit to do so. (Thankfully, we are "shall issue," at least). In any case, if I could OC, I don't guess I would do it often. Those few times I might choose to OC, I suppose it would be more for PR rather than tactics*, and I'm not sure that's a good enough reason. But I am open to the idea.

* Off-topic Alert: This is not to say I believe OC is a poor tactical choice generally; it's just not my preference.

 

[Loosedhorse]

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?

A SCOTUS nullification of the law would be a good PR result. Many have noted that gun sales are up, and there are many theories why. My personal pet is that, after MacDonald, some people are coming to realize, that it's "okay" for them to own a gun. That it isn't something just for the National Guard (and people from Texas! )

I personally also believe that if it ever comes up to a SCOTUS that isn't packed with intellectually dishonest judges, it will likely be ruled that CC can be regulated however a state chooses to...but OC is a 2A right.

And that would be a big PR victory for OC.

(Texans: I'm just jealous is all.)

 

[Inebriated]

OC out in the sticks.
CC in the city and around suburban areas where Soccer Mom's and liberals dance about.

 

[Lawdawg45]

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

I am too, you missed my point. Even a Police Officer open carrying off duty makes some people uncomfortable, some see it as a threat to them. We have an odd gentleman in our neighborhood that walks his small dog at various times throughout the day, and he either carries a long night stick or an 18 inch machete on his hip. People in the edition are scared to death of him, and his "PR" value ain't worth diddly.

LD

 

[beatledog7]

I can open carry in my state, but I generally don't. That's not because I'm concerned about how others might feel if they see a gun on my hip; how another person feels about my exercise of 2A rights is beyond my control.

If there is pro-2A PR value in open carry, I've yet to see it.

 

[coolluke01]

I mean really, is my gun all that scary?

No but that hat sure is.

You do understand that by compromising in the way you describe, always catering to those that don't like our guns, is the exact reason that we are in the position we are in now?

And that position we are in now allows us to CC in all but one state and OC in many. I am able to buy all the guns I want.

Where we have to pay for government permission to exercise a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution?

2A does not give us the right to CC or OC for that matter. loosed might disagree. But the rights given allow for us to defend our country with our guns against foes or wrongful imposition from our government.

Why does it have to be us that compromises? We are the MAJORITY! There are more members of the NRA than there are the Brady Campaign. The anti-gun groups are losing power every day and we need to stop compromising and keep that momentum going.

It is for that very reason I say we should compromise. We are not in the Rosa Parks stage. We have the majority. For the most part the laws do not wrongfully infringe on my rights. You may not like the regulation, but I see no harm in it and it helps our PR angle quite a bit I feel. Repealing wrong laws and getting our rights reinstated is more of a brute force like movement. Educating the remaining ignorant is a finesse operation. I know everyone wants to say
"..But don’t forget, men, we’re gonna get ‘em on the run, we’re gonna go, go, go, go! And we aren’t going to stop until we go over that goal line! And don’t forget, men, today is the day we’re gonna win. They can’t lick us, and that’s how it goes. The first platoon men…go in there and fight, fight, fight, fight, fight!

What do you say, men!"

- Knute Rockne (105-12-5)
Im not sure that's what our PR needs to be right now. And I know you may not feel that is what you are doing. You may not be at all, but some are.
I see no harm in willfully surrendering my rights temporally to accommodate those that don't get it. It's not gonna put me in the back of the buss. I see it as a matter of tact and finesse.
Again I really like the idea of OC'ing a pretty gun. If I were to OC it would be a SAA clone in stainless. I would probably have my G26 on my leg as well. I can't very well expect do defend my self with a "Nickel plated sissy pistol" Lol

 

[Sam1911]

I am too, you missed my point. Even a Police Officer open carrying off duty makes some people uncomfortable,

Oh, then yes, I did miss your point. I though they had strategic reasons for doing so.

I'm interested in this as I never knew of a police officer who was very much concerned with whether his sidearm frightened or put off someone. I have met plenty who just don't carry unless they have to, but that's for completely different reasons as well.

 

[Sam1911]

2A does not give us the right to CC or OC for that matter. loosed might disagree. But the rights given allow for us to defend our country with our guns against foes or wrongful imposition from our government.

There are TWO operative verbs in the pertinent clause: "Keep" and "Bear." The second one is just as important, and just as protected, as the first.

If the amendment had been written to say only, "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed," perhaps that would be more clear. I think, no I KNOW, that a very great many gun type folks assuage themselves that since they are able to KEEP a firearm, their rights are maintained. But that is in truth only half of the picture.

For the most part the laws do not wrongfully infringe on my rights.

Er...see? That was quite apt to illustrate my point. Thank you.

It is for that very reason I say we should compromise. We are not in the Rosa Parks stage. We have the majority.

This is quite backward. I don't know that I feel we clearly have the majority, at least not a majority that holds our specific level of clarity on all of these issues, but if we do, then this is the time NOT to compromise.

We're never going to get SOME people to agree with us. No matter how many times we explain or plead or beg or compromise. The best tactic is to push through the legislation and the reality we want in place, as soon as we can get it. Yes, it will cause superficial outcry and some degree of discomfort among those who aren't of our understanding. But that's going to happen anyway, now or 100 years from now. When folks are forced to live with "us" in their midst, they will rapidly come to the realization that nothing harmful comes of this. Hold the current line and beg, plead, and try to convince folks to agree with us before hand, and we'll never see an inch of progress.

You can ask the soccer moms and urban professionals every day for ten years, "Is it all right with you if I carry my gun here?" and they'll say NO! every time. Go ahead and DO IT, suffer their momentary alarm, and within a short while they'll forget that it even was and issue.

 

[coolluke01]

I feel you are confusing the legislative process and the real world interactions.
I support the NRA. I support pro gun laws and vote accordingly.

We do need to understand that people in the world will vote on issues that they see in the real world. If we were to CC no one would be faced with this "issue" and they may just forget about it. You are right that we will never change some peoples minds. We don't have to. They are not the majority. Those that could go either way are the majority, and for the most part they don't care as long as it doesn't effect them in a negative way.

People are sheep. They will believe what they are told. Unfortunately the "gun nut" with a gun on his hip has been discredited by the media and the gun nut with a gun on his hip. Now Im not saying that everyone that OC's is a gun nut, but that is the way it's perceived.

I'm not saying that we should grovel, beg and ask for permission everywhere we go. There is a big difference between lying down and letting others walk all over our rights and our privileges and yielding our "rights" for the sake of someone that is really uncomfortable. We can't discredit what others are feeling or thinking. It may be wrong thinking and illogical from our point of view, but it makes sense to them at the time. If simply covering it up can, in those cases, fix the problem I say we should. If you CC you won't have to worry about these issues. If you choose to OC than I think we should be prepared to yield when someones truly uncomfortable. This is not a blanket statement. This yielding will not look the same or even be the right thing to do in every case.

If we approach the situation with the idea that these fricking liberals just wanna rip my 2A rights away from me, that is where the situation will gravitate to. We need to lead the uneducated opponent down the road to understanding the truth. If we don't have the opportunity to educate them then we need to try and do no harm. If we stand up and say "This is my right and you can't make me do anything because the laws of this state allow me to do what I want." This will be the issue they will attack. They may have never though about this issue. They might have voted for a pro gun politician because they didn't have a strong opinion about gun control. Now we have made an enemy and have drawn the line in the sand. Let's draw the line in the sand where we want it to be. Lets make the discussion about how understanding and willing to accommodate those that carry are. No ones going to kick the guy that's humble and you will allow this person to investigate this on their own. People like their own ideas. If we allow them to learn the truth about carry rights after seeing a person yield his or her right, what do you think their opinion of that person will be?

I am becoming more convinced that OC could be a positive PR move. But! It needs to be done the *right way. I'm sorry to say that I have yet to hear an example of how this has been done in the *right way.

*My way.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I am becoming more convinced that OC could be a positive PR move. But! It needs to be done the *right way. I'm sorry to say that I have yet to hear an example of how this has been done in the *right way.

The thing is, in states that have true open carry (not that unloaded mess in California) the citizens who live there day in and day out don't really notice it.

I've wandered all over Arizona carrying openly and not once has anyone so much as given me a second glance.

Truth is that most folks never notice the gun unless the carrier does something stupid to call attention to it. The best "PR" for open carry is to simply do it and go about daily life as a normal law abiding citizen.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I think, no I KNOW, that a very great many gun type folks assuage themselves that since they are able to KEEP a firearm, their rights are maintained. But that is in truth only half of the picture.

I agree, of course. I think that any honest SCOTUS will have to say someday the either CC or OC is constitutionally protected (some form of "bear" must be), and the historical tradition in most states was to consider OC forthright and CC sneaky.

Of course, that's not a given. A dishonest Court will continue the pre-Heller line that "bear" is a particularly military word (as in, for example, "bear fruit" ), and can only be understood to mean "bear arms as part of military service; that's the 'bear arms' that's protected." Or just decide to reverse Heller altogether.

 

[coolluke01]

Or this could be the meaning of "Bear Arm's"
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...4IT473B8-_gAeJ09WiDg&ved=0CEkQ9QEwBw&dur=3152

There is also a scene from the simpsons "The Cartridge Family" that I always think of when I hear people talk about bear arms

 

[Lawdawg45]

Oh, then yes, I did miss your point. I though they had strategic reasons for doing so.

I'm interested in this as I never knew of a police officer who was very much concerned with whether his sidearm frightened or put off someone. I have met plenty who just don't carry unless they have to, but that's for completely different reasons as well.

Honestly, it's not the total reason, but it does play a significant part in LE education at the academy level. Recruits are taught to be "de-escalators" in situations, to go in like a lamb and not a lion, and small things such as voice level, stance and manorisms can make or break a situation. We might react in the same manor if we were to call about a noise complaint with a next door neighbor, and the Officer responded to your door with an AR-15......it does project a clear message of force. I'll again add it's a total tactical blunder on many levels, but I've also said that I'm more worried about homie with a Mac 10 under his hoodie, than bubba with a wheel gun on his hip, but that's just me!

LD

 

[coolluke01]

Recruits are taught to be "de-escalators" in situations, to go in like a lamb and not a lion, and small things such as voice level, stance and manorisms can make or break a situation.

This is the way I would suggest going about a OC disturbance scenario.

 

[Skribs]

I think it all depends on how it's done. If you OC and act like a jackhole, then you're going to give RKBA a bad name. If you OC and are polite and people react negatively, its easy for others to see that they're being unreasonable.

 

[NavyLCDR]

For the most part the laws do not wrongfully infringe on my rights. You may not like the regulation, but I see no harm in it and it helps our PR angle quite a bit I feel.

Really? Well let's see, for 100 years in this country it was viewed that the laws which granted "free man" rights only to white male landowners were not infringing on women or black people. For 5 decades after that, the laws that kept women from voting were not viewed as infringing upon their "rights". For a couple decades after that segregation was not viewed as infringing upon anyone's rights.

You REALLY, HONESTLY believe that being required to pay the government for a permission permit to engage in an activity does not infringe upon the right to engage in that activity? In some states the required training and the required permit may cost several hundred dollars. How is that not infringing upon at least those people who can't afford it?

 

[coolluke01]

I had to pay $100 to the sheriff's office for the background check. It cost them money to have people do that and I have no problem with that.
I had to pay $150-175 for the Carry class. The training was very good and I wouldn't want to carry with out some form of training.
My friend live in MS and they just have to fill out a from and do a simple background check. He didn't know the first thing about what his rights in using deadly force were. Very scary! I am glad to have the states doing background checks and requiring training. We require training for driving, and fees go to the state for that privilege as well.

States that don't require training are doing people a huge disservice by not educating them on how to go about protecting them selves within the law.

I'm not saying that all laws do not wrongfully infringe on our rights. I mean that I feel the laws that pertain to gun ownership and carry do not do this.

 

[NavyLCDR]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on what infringing means.

 

[Sam1911]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on what infringing means.

"I just had to pay $xyz... and then I just had to pay $pdq for that ... but my rights aren't infringed."

Now, if I was some poor sucker who couldn't afford to pay $xyz + $pdq, well, who cares about my rights anway? The lower class generally just get into trouble when they're allowed to carry guns, right?

That just carries on a long, and often treasured, tradition of asking folks to meet certain requirements before they can exercise a right. We need to make sure these are the right sorts of folks, don't we? Responsible folks, upstanding folks, financially stable folks, white f.... whoops. Uh...never mind.

 

[coolluke01]

I guess we all have different opinions about that. I look at it more from the point of view of: I pay these fees so that the Gov can weed out the people that would use a CC to do harm. Not only is it good for our cause PR wise, it makes our country safer. There are many people that should not have state approved permits to carry. The public feels safer having background regulations for the same reason and that helps our cause. It also helps weed out the people that will do stupid things with guns which would really hurt our cause.

Our government provides services to us. One is protection. These things cost money. Just like the requirement for license and insurance for your vehicle keep the road safer and make my insurance cost less, so we licensing people to carry. I just glad that the Federal government hasn't stepped in. I think it should be left up to the states to decide. That also goes for reciprocity too.
Does everyone have a right to carry? I say no. Not even if you think the 2A states it is a right. Many have broken laws and have forfeited their rights to carry. Since we can't charge them for my background check I have to pay. But that's the way it always is. Do the criminals pay for the police force? Those that want the protection have to pay.