Open carry or Concealed Carry?

[Treo]

But I still believe that we all lost the right to keep and bear arms a long time ago

You can't lose an inalienable right, but you might have to dye to defend it.

Ask the prisoners at Sobibor

 

[Boba Fett]

Wrong again. There's no such thing as "open carry in a car" in WA. Once you get into the car your firearm is concealed. In that case, yes, you need a CPL. The wording they used in that statement was poor. Open carry is a right, driving or riding in a car is not.

Well tell OpenCarry.org not me. I'm just passing on what they say they've compiled. I provided you the link to it, but here it is again:

Washington State Open Carry from OpenCarry.org

From their website, not from me, but direct from their site:

Open Car Carry - Firearms may be openly carried in cars only with a permit/license.

Treo

You can't lose an inalienable right, but you might have to dye to defend it.

Ask the prisoners at Sobibor

I agree with you that we do have to defend our rights to the point of even dying for them.

Maybe I've been conveying my point wrong. Let me ask everyone this: Do we still have the right if we allow the government to impose so many rules, laws, and regulations that we become unable to fully exercises the right?

I don't think we're quite there yet...maybe in California we are

But I do think we are enough of the way there that our right is being treated as a privilege by government and the regulations, laws, and so forth they are passing or trying to pass are perfect examples of that. That's why I believe that we lost the right and are dealing with privelages.

And I totally agree Treo that we have to die to protect our right from being completely relegated to a privilege and I don't think we've fought hard enough or loud enough over the years.

Ammunition encoding and the former-Clinton-probably-going-to-be-put-back-in-by-Obama "assault weapons" ban are perfect examples. I don't think the framers had the idea that government should limit which firearms we can and cannot purchase. But we are stuck with the privilege of being able to purchase the firearms we can. And we have to fight against such bans that would further reduce our right to a privilege.

 

[cridertj]

I carry iwb most of the time when I will be in town for a while. The rest of the time at home or short trips I carry owb but when in town or going places I find myself covering my gun up some with my untucked shirt or a coat but not to the point I am going out of my way to hide it.

 

[harrygunner]

I would limit my carrying to concealed, but people should be unimpeded from doing either in every state.

In fact, I would like OC to be a "rite of passage". Imagine if parents took their eighteen year old teens to some place like Prescott, AZ for a day of open carrying.

The lack of hysteria or even notice, would immunize them from the shrill cries of anti-gunners for the rest of their lives.

 

[Bubba613]

You can't lose an inalienable right, but you might have to dye to defend it.

I'm gonna dye myself orange next week in fact.

If there were such a thing as inalienable rights you'd be correct. But since no one has explained the practical difference between a right that doesn't exist and one that is denied then I'd have to say you're incorrect on this point.

So we have an obligation to fight for our rights, to educate others to do so, and to keep pushing back against those who would take it away.

 

[conw]

I've seen a lot of posts claiming that open carrying is begging to have some scum bag grab your gun and use it on you. I disagree. The average person who open carries isn't going out looking for trouble, and isn't any more likely to find it. I don't think some crazed junkie is going to run up and grab my pistol while I'm standing in line at Starbucks.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim someone will "grab" it.

I myself said "take" it.

Some of our wiser members around here advise against posting "protected by S&W 3 nights a week, you guess which 3" signs and stickers and the like. Reason being a "model" of criminal that is on the lookout for that eminently saleable item, the handgun...

There IS a model of criminal that will shoot you and grab your things as you bleed to death, no?

A concealed weapon lets you respond to a reactionary gap in that situation, or at least perhaps give up your stuff without being peremptorily shot. But IF you were unlucky enough to run into that kind of bad guy when you were carrying openly, he would shoot you off the bat - no?

So...I hear you typing "That's a very low percentage of crimes." Well, most of the people responding to this thread haven't used or "needed" their gun since they started carrying. Does that mean they shouldn't carry?

I choose the mode of carry that seems safest and I feel I've provided a significant reason in defense of it (or against open carry).

So, respond, or I shall turn purple and froth with rage!

 

[loneviking]

It's nice to live in states that allow O.C. because if you CC and the weapon prints or shows---no crime is committed! That's the biggest reason, IMO, to support O.C. laws.

I'm in Nevada where you can do both. I don't OC around town as I don't like the attention; I don't like being in crowded places where folks (especially little kids) can bump up against an openly carried weapon; and I carry revolvers for which retention holsters pretty much don't exist.

I use pancake holsters from simplyrugged, which when carried IWB keep the gun from rubbing up against you. I just put on an extra large shirt or a conceal carry vest and don't worry about printing. The folks that notice the vest are usually other shooters (there's a large IDPA club in town) or cops. The antis', sheeple and disinterested never notice a thing.

In rural areas, small towns and boonies, I O.C. along with everyone else. I don't find it hard to switch back and forth between the two. I carry the same Mod. 65 or Mod. 19 either way.

 

[louie19]

I agree with others who think that we should have both OC and CC. The reason why is:

1. If you are planning on CC, but your gun prints or somehow is revealed, then legal OC protects you.
2. If you are planning on OC, but your coat or shirt obscures it, then legal CC protects you.

So the two go hand-in-hand.

 

[Treo]

If there were such a thing as inalienable rights you'd be correct. But since no one has explained the practical difference between a right that doesn't exist and one that is denied then I'd have to say you're incorrect on this point.

I'm going to use Sobibor for an example, The prisoners at Sobibor had a right to life & liberty not granted by government. And even though the legitimate government at the time had taken their physical freedom and was planning to take their lives. It couldn't separate them from their right to life and freedom which they exercised by killing several of the guards and escaping en masse.
Google it it's a facinating story.

The Bill of Rights doesn't grant me a single right it acknowledges rights that I already have and that no one can take away from me.

To paraphrase Ted Nugent I don't need a document to tell me that I have a right to defend my life and freedom

And what the antis would do well to realize is that there are a hell of a lot of people ( armed people I might add) out here who see this issue exactly the way I do and are quite willing to fight to enforce our view.

 

[Boba Fett]

And what you and your anti buddies would do well to realize is that there are a hell of a lot of people ( armed people I might add) out here who see this issue exactly the way I do and are quite willing to fight to enforce our view.

I don't think Bubba is trying to be anti anything. In fact, in the post you quoted him from also contained the following:

So we have an obligation to fight for our rights, to educate others to do so, and to keep pushing back against those who would take it away.

Sounds like he, as do I, agree with you that we have to be "quite willing to fight to enforce our view."

 

[Guillermo]

As statistics prove, more guns, less crime.

Really? Hmm.... Dont get me wrong..Im all for owning/carrying a weapon, but I find this "fact" somewhat dubious. I guess it all depends on where you live.

I suggest that you study then. There is not a place where stricter gun controls have not lead to higher crime rates and where more gun rights lead to lower crime.

The best study on this proven fact is done by John Lott who titled a book More Guns-Less Crime.

No reasonable person can read that and come away unconvinced.

 

[nrthwoods]

I agree with others who think that we should have both OC and CC. The reason why is:

1. If you are planning on CC, but your gun prints or somehow is revealed, then legal OC protects you.
2. If you are planning on OC, but your coat or shirt obscures it, then legal CC protects you.

So the two go hand-in-hand.

That's a good point, I hadn't considered that. I think if I had the choice, I'd most often carry concealed but that is a great perspective as to why they should both be legal.

Everywhere.

 

[Oro]

I am shocked to see how much fun you all are having bashing those of us who occasionally or consistently open carry. The reason I say that is because the method to reclaiming handgun and firearm rights in this country is to show responsible ownership and use. Don't think Heller let's you sit back and be safe; "infringed" was made the law of the land with Heller. The most effective method of fighting that is responsible open carry where allowed, showing the existing laws work and no more infringement is necessary. CC of course, does nothing to further your goals.

I open carry whenever not in urban areas, and I wish I had the cojones to do so in downtown Seattle but I usually don't. But I applaud those that do. They reinforce the right we all have to carry arms, and show it responsibly. They make those on the border-line more inclined to trust gun owners, and that's where the battle lies. Gun owners who hide their affinity for guns serve no good. Overall, it reminds me of a Sunday-School song called "Hide it under a bush" - you know the rest ( I hope, if you aren't Christina, no worries). For those of you who choose to disregard open carry where it is legal for you, I hope you are making an extra donation to the NRA or others to make up for your cowardice. That "hiding it under a bush" and all. If arms are a constitutional right, why are you shying away from exercising it? Because the cops might question you? Why not take that as a chance to educate them? Because a silly lefty might question you? Why not use that as a chance to educate them? It's what many do.

The advocates of gun rights who won't exercise them out of fear are a huge problem for the future of our country. For those of you who won't open carry in states where it is legal, I ask you to think about that.

And then there's this silly "they'll shoot me first" argument to hid behind. When a gunman walks into a bank dedicated to shooting down armed opposition, it's the guards who he's going to recognize first, not you. The argument "my gun makes me a target" is silly beyond believe. We know from tons of sociology with inmates that avoiding an armed target is the priority. Based on crime statistics and felon testimony, an openly armed subject is the LEAST desirable target.

Get a grip, and act up to your beliefs. It's all that is going to save gun rights in this country - if you step aside, there is no one else to preserve it.

 

[Bubba613]

I'm going to use Sobibor for an example, The prisoners at Sobibor had a right to life & liberty not granted by government. And even though the legitimate government at the time had taken their physical freedom and was planning to take their lives. It couldn't separate them from their right to life and freedom which they exercised by killing several of the guards and escaping en masse.

That's an absurd interpretation. They were prisoners. They were deprived of life and liberty (and property too no doubt). They rioted. Prisoners at Attica rioted too and took control of the prison. Were they merely exercising their inalienable rights?

 

[Treo]

The only crime the prisoners at Sobibor commited was being Jews

 

[gregormeister]

I conceal though PA allows open carry. I think in the hoplophobe society we live in it is better to conceal than to deal with worry warts calling cops, security ETC... and causing a disturbance in a McDonalds....My 2 cents

 

[Polish_Pounder]

While there are many good reasons to conceal a pistol when legal to do so, people will find that most of the scenes that are talked about as a certainty (cops called, being held at gun point by the police, people running with fear) just don't happen. I OC in Michigan often, and the cops came over for a chat with me once after a concerned woman at a parade informed them I had a gun. Other than that I have had no problems, including carrying at McDonalds, Pizza Hut, mom and pop restaurants, coffee shops, gas stations, etc.

Go to www.opencarry.org and click on your state's forum. You will find tons of threads on OC experiences, the vast majority of them positive. The most common conversation I have goes like this:

Them - Is that a real gun?

Me - Yes, sir/ma'am

Them - Are you allowed to do that?

Me - Yes, and you are too.

Them - Really? You aren't a cop?

Me - No, I'm not a cop. And yes, if you can legally own and possess a firearm in MI you can open carry without a permit, subject to certain restrictions. Check out the MI State Police web page for specifics.

If you look like you are going about your normal business, people don't assume that you have harmful intent (for the most part). Do I CC? Absolutely, about 50% of the time due to weather considerations in the great white north, and about 90% when in Detroit. As others have said, it is just one of many options we have. Please check out the site, I guarantee you will find it informative.

-Polish