The exact reason you should be able to carry your gun on public transportation and in public

[Pat Riot]

I completely understand what @BJung is trying to say. I lived in CA for years and coincidentally I worked in rail public transit in some of the worst neighborhoods in California. Watts, Compton, Inglewood, Long Beach.
I will not ride public transit. The lowest of the low are predators on rail transit. A lot happens that the public doesn’t hear about. Fights, knifings, shootings happen often and unless someone actually dies, the public doesn’t hear a peep. Why? Money to keep finding transit.

The law in CA states that if you have a CCW in counties that will issue them and somehow your weapon is exposed and you’re reported you will lose your permit. There is NO open carry allowed in most places and in places that do allow it the gun cannot be loaded. Yes, you read it right. The gun cannot be loaded.

I was pulled to the side by LA Sheriff’s Deputies because a lady said I had a gun. I was at work on a train riding the line inspecting rail cars. I had my ID badge on and a safety vest identifying me as an employee. I raised my arm to grab a rail to hold on as the train went into braking. She saw a black holster and reported me. The holster was my nylon Leatherman sheath.
Even though the deputies verified it was a tool pouch there was still a write up in the security reports as “a man with a gun was detained”. Not “an employee with a tool sheath”. Sensationalism rules the day and drives tax dollars into the coffers of law enforcement and the transit agency “to fight crime” while known gangbangers are left to do as they please.

 

[Insignificant bill]

I completely understand what @BJung is trying to say. I lived in CA for years and coincidentally I worked in rail public transit in some of the worst neighborhoods in California. Watts, Compton, Inglewood, Long Beach.
I will not ride public transit. The lowest of the low are predators on rail transit. A lot happens that the public doesn’t hear about. Fights, knifings, shootings happen often and unless someone actually dies, the public doesn’t hear a peep. Why? Money to keep finding transit.

The law in CA states that if you have a CCW in counties that will issue them and somehow your weapon is exposed and you’re reported you will lose your permit. There is NO open carry allowed in most places and in places that do allow it the gun cannot be loaded. Yes, you read it right. The gun cannot be loaded.

I was pulled to the side by LA Sheriff’s Deputies because a lady said I had a gun. I was at work on a train riding the line inspecting rail cars. I had my ID badge on and a safety vest identifying me as an employee. I raised my arm to grab a rail to hold on as the train went into braking. She saw a black holster and reported me. The holster was my nylon Leatherman sheath.
Even though the deputies verified it was a tool pouch there was still a write up in the security reports as “a man with a gun was detained”. Not “an employee with a tool sheath”. Sensationalism rules the day and drives tax dollars into the coffers of law enforcement and the transit agency “to fight crime” while known gangbangers are left to do as they please.

Yep, its about controling law abiding people.

 

[Smaug]

...The law in CA states that if you have a CCW in counties that will issue them and somehow your weapon is exposed and you’re reported you will lose your permit.

Interesting. One can imagine what they were thinking when they made that law: "We don't want people carrying anyway, so let's take their guns for the slightest little thing." and "A fellow can brandish by just lifting up his shirt to show his piece. We can't have that."

There is NO open carry allowed in most places and in places that do allow it the gun cannot be loaded. Yes, you read it right. The gun cannot be loaded.

Here too, I can imagine what the lawmakers were thinking: "If he's carrying openly, someone could sneak up and take the gun; best it's unloaded when that happens." I'm guessing most open carry in CA is auto pistols, then.

We have a funny law in Wisconsin, too: To carry concealed, we need to take a 4 hour class. It was a good class, going into when we can and can't shoot, where we can and can't carry, etc. It's very good education before going armed into the wild. I will get crucified here for saying it, but I think it's a better idea than "constitutional carry".

On the other hand, open carry is not forbidden, and to carry openly, the class is not required. Anyone who can legally own a gun can carry openly.

Can anyone tell me the rationale behind this? ↑

I was pulled to the side by LA Sheriff’s Deputies because a lady said I had a gun. I was at work on a train riding the line inspecting rail cars. I had my ID badge on and a safety vest identifying me as an employee. I raised my arm to grab a rail to hold on as the train went into braking. She saw a black holster and reported me. The holster was my nylon Leatherman sheath.
Even though the deputies verified it was a tool pouch there was still a write up in the security reports as “a man with a gun was detained”. Not “an employee with a tool sheath”. Sensationalism rules the day and drives tax dollars into the coffers of law enforcement and the transit agency “to fight crime” while known gangbangers are left to do as they please.

Woo, that's maddening. Was there any way to set the record straight? You don't want that to crop up later if you have to shoot someone.

 

[Pat Riot]

Woo, that's maddening. Was there any way to set the record straight? You don't want that to crop up later if you have to shoot someone.

They didn’t record my name, just the reported incident. Probably so they could justify funding or some other bureaucratic nonsense. And no, there was no way to set the record straight. I didn’t much care. I was a short timer just biding me time to get the heck out of there.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Interesting. One can imagine what they were thinking when they made that law: "We don't want people carrying anyway, so let's take their guns for the slightest little thing." and "A fellow can brandish by just lifting up his shirt to show his piece. We can't have that."


Here too, I can imagine what the lawmakers were thinking: "If he's carrying openly, someone could sneak up and take the gun; best it's unloaded when that happens." I'm guessing most open carry in CA is auto pistols, then.

We have a funny law in Wisconsin, too: To carry concealed, we need to take a 4 hour class. It was a good class, going into when we can and can't shoot, where we can and can't carry, etc. It's very good education before going armed into the wild. I will get crucified here for saying it, but I think it's a better idea than "constitutional carry".

On the other hand, open carry is not forbidden, and to carry openly, the class is not required. Anyone who can legally own a gun can carry openly.

Can anyone tell me the rationale behind this? ↑



Woo, that's maddening. Was there any way to set the record straight? You don't want that to crop up later if you have to shoot someone.

Permitless carry is working just fine in half the country.

 

[BJung]

Permitless carry is working just fine in half the country.

Just don't let the gun control Dems get elected in your State. They smile and say nice things. And when elected, they get their ideas implemented. I have a buddy who moved to AZ. After the last presidential election, I asked him how his State became Democratic. His reply was that they started by getting elected into the School Board..

 

[Rubone]

I'm still trying to figure out how the OPs post got turned into an open carry thread....

 

[BJung]

Well, let's try to fix that since the OP touches on City Crime. I think the current crime wave and political climate is ripe for concealed and open carry and cite the Mechanic by Charles Bronson. Police are in such short supply in Woke cities that you think private security like in RoboCop will be next.

 

[CDW4ME]

There are some people that will go on vacation (or for "entertainment") where they can't carry (like NY) - I am not one of those people.

 

[Aim1]

Well, let's try to fix that since the OP touches on City Crime. I think the current crime wave and political climate is ripe for concealed and open carry and cite the Mechanic by Charles Bronson. Police are in such short supply in Woke cities that you think private security like in RoboCop will be next.

So many companies in MN got private security in the last few years including politicians that were Defund the POLICE!

 

[Mauser fan]

I have been watching this thread and trying hard to control myself by not posting an opinion to the topic at hand and now I'm going to fail miserably.

Here is what gets to me about this whole steaming pile. It is often the over reliance on one single source of information that formulates ones conclusion right or wrong is all a matter of interpretation by the receiver and not the intent of the message sent by the sender. In reality it all boils down to what is convenient in terms of directing the interpretation of the laws being discussed which are Concealed Carry and Open Carry of Firearms that is the question?

The idea that both should be constitutional is the point at this time and both ideas are really falling on deaf ears and that goes for both extremes on both party lines. Because the politicians don't care no matter what they may say to your face. They are all in self preservation mode not what is best for the people that elected them to represent the masses. Politicians only want credit for the good things that happen and nothing to do with the bad.

One needs to ask oneself. Does the situation really require that I do either or by doing so am I going to be doing more harm than good? In other words will it really be necessary to do so? Or will I be unwilling to accept responsibility for what the outcome may be however extreme the circumstances may be? Or will I just be inviting trouble that I don't want?
For instance the situation where Dudley Do Right or Self Appointed Barney Fife who doesn't know the difference between a knife holster or a firearm holster or a cell phone holster and reports you to the authorities or belligerently confronts you. At the very least you will have been inconvenienced or worse be placed under arrest or even worse than that place yourself in a situation where you have no choice but to defend yourself.

Then what is the outcome? Someone goes to jail, someone ends up at the morgue and families have to pick up the pieces.

It is of my opinion if anybody chooses to do either.

DO SO RESPONSIBLY AND DON'T COME CRYING TO ME WHEN YOU GET HEMMED UP FOR IT!!! BECAUSE I DON'T CARE!!! YOU MADE YOUR BED NOW LAY IN IT!!!

Drive intoxicated, play in traffic or walk into a police station with gun. What do you think will happen?
It is like lane splitting for motorcycle riders. Californians should know exactly what I'm referring to. Just because it is legal doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

I'll call it natural selection.

PEOPLE USE YOUR BEST JUDGEMENT!!!

 

[Poper]

Carrying is not the crux of the gun-rights debate. Possession is. I think we're putting the cart before the horse by focusing so much on the carrying aspect. After all, you can't carry what you can't own.

I disagree.
Keep (possession) and bear (carry) arms are equal columns upon which individual liberty is supported. Possession of firearms is meaningless unless you can also use (carry) said firearms. Which is why the powers that be seek to deny the average citizen his right to 'bear' arms.
JMHO, of course.