OC vs. CC Best PR move

[coolluke01]

We got to where we are today with laws such as in California, New York and New Jersey because of compromise, with these laws hidden behind the disguise of "reasonable regulation".

You are the one that told me NY had the first laws made because of the Crime boss that didn't want people shooting back.
CA, had the right to OC and then I got removed. It wouldn't have been removed if people ignored their right to OC and never did it. At least that's what I think. Laws are changed because people don't like what other people are doing. Some times it is preventative too I guess. So CA may not be a good reference.

Rosa Parks had no rights enforced by any form of government. So I say she had no rights. Basic human rights to be treated equal, sure, but none recognized by the Gov at that time. She had to be heard to get those that were doing wrong to change the laws.

What's all this point you are trying to make, coolluke01, about fighting for rights that you turn around and say in the next few words that we should not use? What difference does it make? I would rather have the government flat out make something illegal, because that provides me with the opportunity to fight it in court, rather than have something be legal....oh but don't do it because you will make enough people uncomfortable that they will legislate against it.

I think we have these rights and they have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Rosa didn't have that.
Yielding rights is not giving them up or declaring them to have not existed. It is a temporary act of deference to those that don't understand.
I think OC could have good PR if done properly.
If the Judge in my state told me I could not carry OC or CC I would take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I had to.
If a fellow citizen was really uncomfortable with my OC I would try and accommodate them so that my cause would not be a point of contention. This uncomfortable citizen isn't going to write a law telling me I can't do what my rights tell me I can. But they will vote and encourage others to vote one way or another. Our job is to help encourage that choice to be made in an intelligent and non emotional way.

I would much rather have the situation we are in now than to have the Gov make it illegal and make us fight to get our rights back.

And i'll say this is the way i plan on dealing with it if it comes up. In any group we need to have many different types that will deal with the public in different ways. I do think we can learn how to deal with a wider range of the public from each other.

 

[Skribs]

CA, had the right to OC and then I got removed. It wouldn't have been removed if people ignored their right to OC and never did it.

Which begs the question - that Sam has been asking - what good is that right if it never gets used?

I would much rather have the situation we are in now than to have the Gov make it illegal and make us fight to get our rights back.

If we can't do it, we already don't have our rights.

 

[CoRoMo]

It wouldn't have been removed if people ... never did it.

That's what I said. Stop doing it, this way, it will remain legal. This goes for all our rights; stop speaking freely otherwise it will get abridged, stop pursuing happiness so that it won't be prohibited, and for the love of Pete, stop keeping and bearing arms before they get banned.

 

[coolluke01]

From my point of view I don't see OC as a necessary right for me. I wouldn't give it up as that is a slippery slope though.

I don't see that as the case for the most part. We can CC in every state but one. And many states allow OC.

I've said this before. Getting the bulk of the laws on our side (which we do) takes brute force. The last few restrictions and ignorant public opinion will take some finesse.

If you say our battle is the same as Rosa's look at how it was done right and how it was done wrong. Those that were being discriminated against made big speeches and had rallies. They demanded their rights. Once they got them they needed to win over public opinion. That is the hard part. Does having 50%+ of the jails filled with minorities help their cause? No. On the other hand some of the wrong thinking towards minorities is blatant ignorance. This will not be corrected with a clash or the victim demanding their rights. It needs to be done by getting to know each other and respect. I don't want to lead this down the road to the race issue, but it is an interesting comparison.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Ok, first off I would like to congratulate you good people for carrying on a discussion about a rather sensitive and somewhat testy topic in a civil manner. Five pages of opinions, thoughts, and ideas, with a touch of banter thrown in, and no name calling or belittling. Refreshing I'd say. Now that I have said that (couldn't help it since it is a bit rare)...

I have been carrying on a regular basis for over 16 1/2 years with the last over 4 1/2 years being nearly all in the open carry mode. While there are certainly times when I do CC, virtually always it's OC. I do this largely because I have osteoarthritis in both of my knees which precludes me from running away or fighting as I was once capable of doing. The gun on my side serves as a warning to those who might wish to do me harm that perhaps it is in their better interest to find another victim. My preference is to ward off an attack before it starts.

In the entire time I have carried a handgun, both modes, I have never had a negative encounter with an LEO and only one with a citizen. That happened in August 2009 in a McDonald's. The man claimed he was a retired LEO but judging from his accent, he was not a native Virginian... more like from somewhere in the northeast. I stayed calm and he didn't which made him look the fool.

While OC'ing, I have approached LEO's for information, been in police precinct stations, encountered a number of them in groups, stood next to them, and just generally been visible to them as I went about my business. All have been fine and professional when they saw me armed.

As for the public at large I have had questions, a lot of them, regarding the laws in the state, what type and caliber of gun I was carrying, "I didn't know you could do that" sort of questions, and just a host of other queries. Most people seemed to be genuinely interested and the vast majority have had positive comments. A few, though not nasty at all, were a little taken aback, but still did ask questions.

Overwhelmingly, it is a no-brainer here in my state to go openly armed. Virginia is probably the most gun-lenient and gun-friendly state in the South with perhaps the fewest restrictions on where we can carry and under what conditions. Frankly, there are few places we can't carry.

So PR-wise here, it is all good. And one way to tell is the fact that since the OC movement has really come into the limelight in Virginia (around 2004), we have seen an increased number of pro-gun bills getting introduced and signed into law.

 

[Lawdawg45]

Ok, first off I would like to congratulate you good people for carrying on a discussion about a rather sensitive and somewhat testy topic in a civil manner. Five pages of opinions, thoughts, and ideas, with a touch of banter thrown in, and no name calling or belittling. Refreshing I'd say. Now that I have said that (couldn't help it since it is a bit rare)...

I have been carrying on a regular basis for over 16 1/2 years with the last over 4 1/2 years being nearly all in the open carry mode. While there are certainly times when I do CC, virtually always it's OC. I do this largely because I have osteoarthritis in both of my knees which precludes me from running away or fighting as I was once capable of doing. The gun on my side serves as a warning to those who might wish to do me harm that perhaps it is in their better interest to find another victim. My preference is to ward off an attack before it starts.

In the entire time I have carried a handgun, both modes, I have never had a negative encounter with an LEO and only one with a citizen. That happened in August 2009 in a McDonald's. The man claimed he was a retired LEO but judging from his accent, he was not a native Virginian... more like from somewhere in the northeast. I stayed calm and he didn't which made him look the fool.

While OC'ing, I have approached LEO's for information, been in police precinct stations, encountered a number of them in groups, stood next to them, and just generally been visible to them as I went about my business. All have been fine and professional when they saw me armed.

As for the public at large I have had questions, a lot of them, regarding the laws in the state, what type and caliber of gun I was carrying, "I didn't know you could do that" sort of questions, and just a host of other queries. Most people seemed to be genuinely interested and the vast majority have had positive comments. A few, though not nasty at all, were a little taken aback, but still did ask questions.

Overwhelmingly, it is a no-brainer here in my state to go openly armed. Virginia is probably the most gun-lenient and gun-friendly state in the South with perhaps the fewest restrictions on where we can carry and under what conditions. Frankly, there are few places we can't carry.

So PR-wise here, it is all good. And one way to tell is the fact that since the OC movement has really come into the limelight in Virginia (around 2004), we have seen an increased number of pro-gun bills getting introduced and signed into law.

Yep. As I've said here before, it's homie with a Tech 9 or Mac 10 under his hoodie that scares me!

LD

 

[GoWolfpack]

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.

If you promise not to tell anybody else, I'll let you in a secret: those people who "would use a CC to do harm," they don't care about having a permit. Dangerous people are just that, dangerous, no matter the law or the circumstance.

 

[coolluke01]

Lol. I won't tell.

Mainly because it's not true. Sorry.
I know many people that do not possess handguns because it would be unlawful for them to do so. And even more people that don't apply for carry permits because they know they will not be allowed to. In each of these situations these people have proven they are not responsible enough to own or carry a firearm. The law is a deterrent. It's not going to stop all from possessing or carrying but it does help.
It's not going to stop those that really really want to do harm. That's why I carry. All I know is that I wanted to carry and now I can. Sure there were a few hoops to jump through. Many more than most of you for that matter. Im not complaining. I have my rights and I'm able to carry what more could I want?

 

[316SS]

CA, had the right to OC and then I got removed. It wouldn't have been removed if people ignored their right to OC and never did it.

...

Rosa Parks had no rights enforced by any form of government. So I say she had no rights. Basic human rights to be treated equal, sure, but none recognized by the Gov at that time. She had to be heard to get those that were doing wrong to change the laws.

From my point of view I don't see OC as a necessary right for me.

In post #100 NavyLCDR clearly defined a right as the founding fathers saw it: something that each person possesses as a natural fact (yes, I realize they didn't apply the concept to women and non-whites, but most people now do). To understand the concept of a right, you have to realize that it can never be taken away from you. You can relinquish it (historically by committing a felony, a word that has lost all meaning, in my opinion). If exercising a right is made illegal, then you have not lost your right, it is simply being violated. This is not "mere semantics." Understanding this is a prerequisite to any useful discussion of rights.

The Bill of Rights is simply a list of natural rights that the founding fathers considered so important that they were explicitly listed.

What you seem to be advocating is abandoning the right to openly carry a firearm to some sort of museum, as something that should be kept under glass. It would still exist, but it must never taken out and used.

 

[coolluke01]

I have never said our OC rights should be relegated to a life under glass. I would say, again, yielding our rights could be a very positive tool to use for our cause in regards to PR. Words like yield, temporary, and situational, do not mean permanent. I have made it very clear that I would fight for my rights if need be. The fight however, is not to be done on the streets.

I guess I haven't made this clear or people aren't reading what I'm writing. Again, don't give up your rights! Yield them for the cause when someone is uncomfortable and you will make a friend of that person and it will be more likely they will see this issue from a position of logic instead of an emotional and propaganda educated response.

I'm not saying if you use it you will lose it. I will say bend like the palm tree under the stresses of the "unreasonable" wind or be broken like the rigid oak.

This post was to the issue of PR. Not maintaining of rights. If PR is the real issue why are we so concerned about our own rights?
PR needs to come from a true concern for those around us. If we are doing this only to try and support and bolster our position we will NEVER have good PR.

I work in the service industry. If I want happy customers I have to be willing to give. This will help my business in the end, but my focus must be on the customers best interest not mine. If I have customers that are not happy with my services and if I can't fix the issue with other means, I give them their money back. Do I have a right to that money? You bet. But I yield that right so that I have a satisfied and happy customer. Will some take advantage of that? It's happened very few times. But then we learn they are not a good customer for us.

If we look at why we OC and we see that we are just doing it for attention, you will get attention and not necessarily the kind you want.
If when we OC we have the attitude that this is what I prefer but I will yield my preference for the benefit of others, we will have good PR.

 

[aeriedad]

What you seem to be advocating is abandoning the right to openly carry a firearm to some sort of museum, as something that should be kept under glass. It would still exist, but it must never taken out and used.

I agree. If we start thinking it's OK for the government to require us to obtain their permission slip in order to exercise our rights, we need to re-examine the concept of "rights."

By all means, obey the law or prepare to deal with the consequences. But we must do all we legally can to reverse government's oversight of our "liberty." Liberty lost is not easily regained. I think that relinquishing liberty for the sake of PR is negative progress.

 

[aeriedad]

If we look at why we OC and we see that we are just doing it for attention, you will get attention and not necessarily the kind you want.
If when we OC we have the attitude that this is what I prefer but I will yield my preference for the benefit of others, we will have good PR.

I agree with this too, up to a point. I can't OC in SC, but if I could I would not do so--at least not often. If OC were legal here, and if I should choose to OC sometimes, it would be mostly for PR instead of tactics or personal preference. But since my reason for carrying in the first place is based on my preference in self defense and not on PR, I would stick to CC. Probably. For me, PR alone is not sufficient reason to OC.

We should be aware of the PR implications of our choices when it comes to method of carry, but they should be subordinated to our rights. I don't see this as an "either - or" kind of thing. We can be excellent representatives of gun owners in public without "temporarily" relinquishing our rights.

 

[coolluke01]

sigh...

 

[krupparms]

In the ST. of Oregon we can O.C. or pay for the privilege to C.C.! I carry openly &have been stopped on the street by local P.D. &have been harrased by them more than by people who were uncomfortable that I was carrying a gun !Most citizens just say its nice to see someone carrying their firearm. Most just admire my 1911Kimber, ask about the laws in our state. I will give them a quick run down &thank them for asking. I realize that some people are uncomfortable with O.C. but I see that as their problem. I was watching a news story on this & a black man was there &openly carrying a gun, 4 white women were telling him how uncomfortable they were. He pointed out that 100 years ago they would have been uncomfortable that he was standing by them as he was a big black man! They agreed with that, He made a good point! It is not our job to make them comfortable! The person at wallmart, maybe he was poor &didn't have nice clothes or nice gear to carry his gun in, that should not be nessasary to his RIGHT TO OPEN CARRY! I believe the war is at street level & at the political level also. Just my opinion that I have a right to with out a fight on the tread!

 

[NavyLCDR]

Lol. I won't tell.

Mainly because it's not true. Sorry.
I know many people that do not possess handguns because it would be unlawful for them to do so. And even more people that don't apply for carry permits because they know they will not be allowed to. In each of these situations these people have proven they are not responsible enough to own or carry a firearm. The law is a deterrent.

Really? Let me ask you this.... these people that you speak of that obey they law and won't possess a handgun because it is illegal, or won't carry a handgun concealed because they don't qualify for a permit.... here's a riddle for you coollukey01, let's see if you can come up with an answer.... if these people respect the law so much then why could we not also expect them to obey the laws which make it illegal to commit a criminal act with a gun? They obey a "no guns" law, why can't we expect them to also obey a "no assault" law, a "no rape" law, a "no robbery" law, or even a "no discharging of a firearm in certain places" law?

You see.... these "no guns" laws only affect those who are willing to obey them, so why can't a "no criminal acts with a gun" law be enough?

 

[coolluke01]

They are afraid of getting caught with a gun they are not allowed to possess. If they had one they would be very likely to use it wrongly. They have shown they can't be trusted.
People that have low regard for the law and those that do regard the law only do what they do if they think they won't get caught.
If the risk of getting caught and the punishment for getting caught were high enough we wouldn't have this problem. But just because we don't suggest the death penalty for every crime doesn't mean that the punishment isn't a deterrent for many to commit a crime.
There are not two types of people. Criminals and non criminals. You commit a crime when you speed. You just think it's not that bad or you won't get caught. If there is a cop behind you, you may drive slower.

Oh and the last time my brother called my Lukey he go punched in the nose. lol j/K

 

[NavyLCDR]

Do you have to pay for government and Brady Campaign kool-aid or do they provide it for free? wow.

 

[coolluke01]

I'm sure they will hand it out if you want it. Believe it or not, i'm not a kool-aid drinking gun natzi.
I'm simply offering an option, a strategy to use when OC'ing.
I've seen it have success in my business and my life.

I think this is the government we have and we should work with what we got. If I could figure out a way to have less government I would.

I vote for the guy that's going to do the least. That way he can't screw things up too much and he won't try and "fix" everything.

 

[316SS]

They are afraid of getting caught with a gun they are not allowed to possess. If they had one they would be very likely to use it wrongly. They have shown they can't be trusted.
People that have low regard for the law and those that do regard the law only do what they do if they think they won't get caught.
If the risk of getting caught and the punishment for getting caught were high enough we wouldn't have this problem. But just because we don't suggest the death penalty for every crime doesn't mean that the punishment isn't a deterrent for many to commit a crime.
There are not two types of people. Criminals and non criminals. You commit a crime when you speed. You just think it's not that bad or you won't get caught. If there is a cop behind you, you may drive slower.

There's too much malarkey in this rambling to refute it all, but I will say this: I've heard of this place you speak of where violent criminals know and care what the firearms laws say, and who sit down over a cup of tea and ask themselves, "is the burglary/robbery/car-jacking/assault I'm about to do really worth risking prison time?" That place is called Fantasy Land. You may live there. I don't.

 

[coolluke01]

I'll give you a few examples. I'm not going to use names, so if you don't trust me then...

Person #1. On probation, bad checks, assault on gf. Looks over his shoulder and avoids places he may get caught when drinking. Drinks less and is more careful than he was before. Conditions of parol do not allow drinking. Violent person that should not be allowed to own a gun. Does not own a gun because he can not legally acquire one and fears violation of parol if he's caught with one. Note drinking is also a violation of parol but punishment for this has not been implemented like it's supposed too. Laws are very effective to prevent wrong behavior. Even when punishments are not implemented.

Person #2. Drug dealer never caught. Forgery of currency caught and sentenced with a stay of imposition. Can not own handguns will never buy one and will never carry one. Has had one straw purchased for him but he keeps it hidden and won't ever bring it out. Laws are partially effective in preventing wrong behavior manly due to the fact he hasn't been caught for much before and was given a slap on the wrist when he was.

I know for every one of these you can come up with ten to prove otherwise. This does show however that laws do have an affect on law breakers. It's absurd to think otherwise.

If we brought back the stocks don't you think that would have an impact on crime?

I should say that I believe that both of these people could very well change the course of their lives and some day be responsible gun owners.

 

[NavyLCDR]

coolluke01,

You originally said this:

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.

Then you attempt to prove your point by stating the two scenarios above (post #121). Let me fill you in on another little secret. You being required to have to pay for a permit to carry a gun and get a background check does absolutely NOTHING to make anyone safer. You know why? Because, my dear boy, IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL for the people in your 2 scenarios to even possess a firearm, let alone carry one whether or not a permit is required! Having a permit system does NOTHING to change that! All the permit system does is make you have to pay for the state's permission to carry your gun! IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL for the people you mentioned to possess a gun, even in the 4 states that have permit-less concealed carry: AZ, VT, AK and WY!

You aren't paying for any government protection. What you are paying for is the opportunity to get to prove to the government that you aren't a criminal!

 

[coolluke01]

I agree that I would rather not pay for this permission. I would love to get it for free.

You are right the it is already illegal for theses people to possess guns. The permitting process is there to weed out these people that are not supposed to have permits from getting them.
I would love to not have to pay for this, but we can't send the bill to the criminals.
Are you going to send the bill for the law enforcement to the bad guys in your city?

If you don't like this system what do you propose?
Do you have a system that will allow for carry and a way for officers in the field to determine on the spot if a person is NOT allowed to be carrying. This is a must! I doubt we can make those that can't possess a gun to carry a piece of paper stating this.
I have no problem having to carry a permit. If its just paying for it that you don't like, well your's is cheaper than mine! How would you like them to fund these operations?

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you don't like this system what do you propose?
Do you have a system that will allow for carry and a way for officers in the field to determine on the spot if a person is NOT allowed to be carrying.

Yep. I sure do have a system. If the officer in the field has reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person carrying the gun is committing a crime by doing so then they call on their radios for a check of the person carrying the gun. If they come back with warrants or disqualifying convictions, then they arrest the person. Just like they do with driver's licenses. The cops in the field don't trust the piece of plastic that you hand them. They go back and call it in to check if it is valid or not. They could do exactly the same thing with people carrying guns when there is reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed.

You are right the it is already illegal for theses people to possess guns. The permitting process is there to weed out these people that are not supposed to have permits from getting them.

Yep, that's all the process accomplishes. It separates the sheep from the goats and provides documentation that the sheep is a sheep. AND it creates a hassle for law abiding citizens, it places a tax on a Constitutionally protected right, and it takes money out of your pockets and gives it to politicians to squander away and you still have not shown us how it makes anyone safer. It's just as illegal for a person to carry a gun that can't qualify for the permit whether or not that permit system is in place and the goat will still be a goat whether or not the sheep have permits or not. Once again, all the permit does is provide an opportunity for you to pay to prove that you are innocent. It does nothing to change the guilt of the guilty.

 

[coolluke01]

The only problem with your system is that it takes time for a proper background check. The system that is in place only checks for warrants and traffic info. It won't tell them if you have committed a felony 10 years ago or a crime of violence that still makes you ineligible for firearm possession.
As a sheep I don't mind paying the fee so that I know no goats are able to lawfully carry a weapon.

If this is just a money issue then I'm afraid theres not a whole lot we can do about that. That will take time.

I think the system we have is better than the system you propose. Do you really want officers to detain you until they can make sure you are safe? I would rather pay to have a card that saves me time and hassle. I know we have to pay but thats where we are.

 

[GoWolfpack]

Ok, well that was fun. How's about we get back to the OP?

I'm not certain concealed carry really has any PR value as far as advancing gun rights goes. The best that can be said is it allows antis to pretend nobody carries guns.

We've pretty much agreed the value of open carry depends entirely on the individual doing it. The perceived value of concealed carry is it doesn't upset anyone no matter who does it.