Open Carry/ LEO perspective

[smallbore]

personal freedom v. political correctness

 

[searcher451]

Was with the family at a local eatery this past weekend and spotted an open carry guy come in and head to the counter to order up some breakfast. I noted the revolver that was strapped on his belt, next to his cell phone and a Leatherman, I think, and pointed it out to my son. Must say that the first thing we both thought about was the thread regarding the guy who was robbed because he was open-carrying in his neighborhood. But ... it was good to see locally, and no one paid it any mind whatsoever, which also was good to see.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I assume you are a LEO. You are accustomed to people seeing your gun and badge and not reacting adversely. The average citizen seems to have a vague sense that gun + badge = LEO = no cause for alarm. Even a concealed carry badge probably prompts the same response as a real LEO badge since most citizens don't closely inspect badges for authenticity.

That's a good point. Not quite good enough to buy a CCW badge, especially since most people I have seen wearing them look like anything but LEOs with regards to the rest of their appearance. But it is an interesting angle to the CCW badge idea. You're right that to most citizens, holstered gun+badge = cop. That can go a long way in avoiding the "OMG there's a guy with a GUN!!" 911 calls from soccer moms.

To all of us on THR, a person with a holstered gun is at most cause for a quiet smile, and probably not even something to pay attention to at all. But to your average mini-van driving PTA-member mom, any gun not in the possession of a cop is on par with a nuclear device. If one decides to smokescreen those people into not freaking out....I can't really blame them.

 

[sv51macross]

But then aren't we as guilty as the antis who would lie and manipulate statistics and facts to push a point? I mean, smokescreening is smokescreening.

 

[wideym]

If I read or hear one more officer/chief use the "officer safety" quote I think I'll throw up! If they wanted a truely safe enviroment they wouldn't have become an LEO in the first place.

Also that crap about officers having more authority to check whether a driver is legally driving a car than to check if a person is legally carrying is just pure BS. Officers cannot just pull over anyone to check their driving status, they must have committed an offence while driving, just like an open carrier must commit an offence while open carrying.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

But then aren't we as guilty as the antis who would lie and manipulate statistics and facts to push a point? I mean, smokescreening is smokescreening.

Guilty of what?

Just as I refuse to condemn a man for not acting to stop an armed robber even though I personally would do so, I also refuse to condemn a man for thinking of only himself while carrying. I'm not putting the weight of the RKBA on anyone's shoulders unless they take it upon themselves. If someone wants to carry a firearm and try to minimize the chance they will be hassled needlessly, that's their prerogative.

 

[Blakenzy]

Law enforcement officers are taught that guns are a dangerous and deadly threat to their safety and the safety of the public they serve.

Maybe they should be taught that before freaking out, to focus on the subject in question, the behavior and demeanor, not only on what tool he/she happens to have on his/her belt.

The police officer who approaches an "open carry" subject must rapidly assess the subject's behavior without knowing if the individual has a permit to carry a gun or a gun license.

Isn't the point of open carry the fact that you DO NOT require a license to do so? Isn't having to "rapidly assess the subject's behavior" part of the job by default regardless of circumstances?

The officer knows only that he or she must detain the subject only long enough to determine whether the gun is unloaded.

Well, if the silly requirement of having the gun unloaded were amended, then the unpleasant interaction of the cop choosing to detain, check and manipulate the weapon of every OCer he comes across would never take place to begin with. That is just an excuse for harassment.

An officer has more authority to check on whether a driver is legally driving a car than to stop an individual to verify if the individual has the right to carry a gun.

And rightly so, seeing that "driving a car" is not a basic, Constitutionally recognized and protected Right (yet).


This whole issue is just a culture clash that can only be resolved through education and understanding between all parties.

 

[Cajun]

My question is in the State of California why in the hell would you open carry an unloaded firearm what is the point of carrying an unloaded firearm? I am just about willing to bet that the bad guys firearm isn't unloaded and I'm sure that he isn't gonna be open carrying either!!

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It's funny yet sad to see people arguing back and forth about what officers are taught when most of you have never even been through police training.

 

[DRZinn]

I'm sorry, did I miss the argument about what cops are taught?

 

[Lucky Derby]

People OC in CA unloaded because:
1. It is the only way for them, in most cases, to carry a firearm. They may have a loaded mag/ammo with them, just not attached to the firearm.
2. They are trying to make a RTKBA political statement. For the time being it is legal for them to do so in this manner.

 

[Gouranga]

It's funny yet sad to see people arguing back and forth about what officers are taught...

It is reflected by their outward behavior as well as a multitude of LEOs who have chosen to post in board such s THR about their training. As LEOs are actual people. a lot of folks actually are friends/family of them and tend to talk to them about their experience/training/POV.

Also, when an officer comes out and makes statements supporting a position to remove or restrict a fundamental right of citizens in the US, he is fair game. Even more so when he/she references his "extensive training" as backup for that position.

They play to "officer safety" to shoot down OC which I find interesting considering given the normal set of tools on my tool belt when working on the house (and I have seen builders out in public with even more), if I was to go berserk, I could kill someone in a heartbeat with them yet nobody would think of freaking about that. For some reason having an legal firearm for the "officer safety" crowd seems to equate to a person either 1. Being a hostile, frothing at the mouth cop killer, or 2. Being a drunk, redneck idiot who walk around juggling his guns loaded with the safety off.

With an OC, an officer KNOW there is a weapon, he/she can see it, he/she can see exactly where the persons hands are in relation to the weapon, and I would guess across the nation, generally the folks officers arrest are not carrying holstered, openly carried firearms.

 

[Manco]

personal freedom v. political correctness

Good observation--used properly, political correctness is a deadly weapon against our freedom of speech. When you can get entire populations to keep their pie holes shut while obviously crazy stuff is going on around them, that's real power. If you can control and manipulate a man's conscience, then you'll own his soul. One other particularly powerful aspect of political correctness is that it seems to transcend all logical associations between things, bypassing more detailed and nuanced reasoning, allowing for ad hoc and non sequitur arguments to win out.

For instance, making it illegal for already illegal aliens to reside in Arizona is claimed by the power of PC to be "racist." Of course we have to make sure that the rights of US citizens and legal residents of Hispanic (mainly, but there are others) background (and anybody else who could be mistaken as such) are not violated in the process of enforcing such laws, but it has nothing to do with racism. However, that's not what most opponents are saying. They're fighting for the "rights" that illegal aliens don't have, namely to live and work in the US. Even foreign governments are getting in on the act--with the US president on their side , going against US law. Maybe the president is one himself. Why aren't more people speaking out against this obvious insanity? What about so-called journalists who should be screaming about the emperor's nonexistent new clothes? I guess they're afraid (or even believe) that it would be "racist."

Regarding guns, obviously a great many people believe that guns are a major cause of violence. This makes no sense as guns are inanimate objects wielded by people, but it is PC to hate and place blame on guns themselves. People do this all the time without thinking or questioning the nature and validity of the associations they're making, and in the absence of valid associations, no amount of reasoning can be effective in convincing anybody of the truth. Their conscience tells them that it is wrong to kill, and because guns kill, they must be evil, and because they don't want to be viewed by others as evil, they will profess that they hate guns even if somewhere in the back of their minds they'd really like to have one (or do have one!) for self-defense (that means I'm evil, and no one must know! ). Conscience (abused) and political correctness versus reason and personal freedom--could there be a more epic struggle for the future of the country and maybe even mankind?

 

[Manco]

I'm sorry, did I miss the argument about what cops are taught?

Obviously this particular cop we're talking about has a narrow point of view, especially for a police chief who speaks to the public.

 

[mikana]

No surprise... He's a chief in CA. He misses the mark, imo, however, by implying that barring some other activity, an officer may detain an individual even long enough to ascertain if the gun is unloaded. Any detention requires reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or about to be committed. Simply open carrying a gun does not rise to that level. (just my opinion, anything's possible in CA)

 

[Gouranga]

Simply open carrying a gun does not rise to that level

I would concur. If we are going to hold anyone carrying something that can be used as a deadly weapon to determine their intent, are we going to hold a builder with a tool full belt? Maybe someone with a pocket knife? How about someone with a ball and bat going out with their kid (that bat can kill in a second)? How about anyone in a car? If that car has gas and a working power plant, heck it can do far more damage than any handgun.

I just love how they demonize the tool and not the human being holding it. The human factor is what makes a weapon dangerous or not.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Yep, Banning something lawful reduces crime and makes everything safer. Didn't they try that with prohibition?