Open Carry impact

[ScooterSissy]

This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

No stress, just disagreement about what constitutes harassment. I feel the same about all my licensed activities. Unless I'm violating a rule regarding said activity, there's zero reason to question me about it.

That's my view. No one should be stopped and questioned for following the law.

[ScooterSissy]

This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

No stress, just disagreement about what constitutes harassment. I feel the same about all my licensed activities. Unless I'm violating a rule regarding said activity, there's zero reason to question me about it.

Devils advocate: unless it is readily apparent by casual observation that you're NOT violating rule or law, then an LEO has a responsibility to investigate further, especially if requested/instructed to do so by superiors and/or concerned citizens.

I disagree completely. When you are driving your car down the road, what evidence is there to the casual observer that you have an operator's license and proper liability coverage?

[Winchster]

Want a "reason"? How about the First Amendnent, does that work for you? Just because someone has a badge does not mean they don't also enjoy the same rights to free speech as you and everyone else. A cop can walk up and ASK you anything they want. You can respond or not however you chose.

You cannot seem to grasp the concept that ASKing and DEMANDing are two completely different actions. There is really nothing more to discuss until you grasp this concept.

My turn to ask, Do you honestly think it's ok to approach someone that is not breaking ANY law and impose yourself into their afternoon?

See my answer above. If someone without a badge walked up and asked you about your open carry gun, would you get all butthurt about that? What if a non-LEO stranger asked if you had a license for your gun, would that violate your rights?

But put a badge on someone and he can only take specific actions at specific times under specific situations that fit your worldview? If you don't want someone to "impose" upon you, the politely refuse to answer, or ignore and keep walking. You have a right to not be FORCED to identify yourself. You have no right to live in a bubble and never be approached nor questioned about anything by anybody. You have a right not to answer. You don't have a right to not be questioned.

1.) I understand officers have a first amendment right to ask me anything they so choose, I also have the right to not answer when asked, but I don't have the right to refuse the demand. See how neatly this plays? As to your condescending dismissal regarding my understanding of ask vs demand. I fully understand the difference, however, when someone in a position of authority asks, they are merely being polite, considering they have the authority to demand.

2.) There's no hurt going on here, merely an observation. You and I obviously align on different sides of this issue. You appear to feel it is perfectly justifiable to question each and every person you see doing something completely legal. And no, if a another citizen asks, since they have no authority to demand, there is no violation.

You can play all the word games you want, but we both know that if a person were to refuse to answer when asked, or ignore and continue walking, that action would create enough suspicion with the officer that he would then demand. Didn't work out exactly like you would prefer to pretend.

I can be forced, by virtue of statute, to present my license when demanded by law enforcement. I'm not going to break the law. I never asked to live in a bubble, I merely wish to live in a world where I am not harassed by law enforcement for doing precisely nothing illegal. The simple act of walking down the street with a holstered firearm is not reason enough to generate any contact whatsoever with law enforcement. Playing word games to reach your predetermined goal of "determining license status" doesn't change the fact that you feel justified in reaching that goal. Point is, there's no reason to play the word games, you could probably find a dozen justifiable reasons to stop and question someone walking down the street within minutes of observing them.

[A-R]

Well, it's been interesting. But I'm done debating folks who know they're opinion is the only correct opinion. Agree to disagree.

As for Chief Acevedo, he's a worthless Kalifornia commie. Period.

[mojo84]

As for Chief Acevedo, he's a worthless Kalifornia commie. Period.

Now there's something we can all agree on. Anyone want to debate this point?

[Taypo]

As for Chief Acevedo, he's a worthless Kalifornia commie. Period.

Now there's something we can all agree on. Anyone want to debate this point?

Not a peep in his defense, but Austin does have a lot of good cops that don't agree with his politics.

[Winchster]

Well, it's been interesting. But I'm done debating folks who know they're opinion is the only correct opinion. Agree to disagree.

As for Chief Acevedo, he's a worthless Kalifornia commie. Period.

It has been interesting and I can agree to disagree as well.
I will retract my previous comment based on your last.

[mr1337]

Well, it's been interesting. But I'm done debating folks who know they're opinion is the only correct opinion. Agree to disagree.

As for Chief Acevedo, he's a worthless Kalifornia commie. Period.

It has been interesting and I can agree to disagree as well.
I will retract my previous comment based on your last.

I think that's an opinion we can all rally around.

[C-dub]

1.) I understand officers have a first amendment right to ask me anything they so choose, I also have the right to not answer when asked, but I don't have the right to refuse the demand. See how neatly this plays? As to your condescending dismissal regarding my understanding of ask vs demand. I fully understand the difference, however, when someone in a position of authority asks, they are merely being polite, considering they have the authority to demand.

This is also where I sit on this issue. With anyone besides a LEO a question is just that. With a LEO, however, it is more often than not just being polite and not really just a question. Most of the time, though, the reason for the contact will make it more obvious as to whether or not it is just a question or a polite demand.

The biggest problem, as I see it with OC, is that even if I'm walking minding my own business and haven't done anything else I can't control or know what the caller said to 911 that prompted the contact with a LEO. Even though the officer didn't witness any illegal behavior if the caller said I was waving it around or threatened them that's all the officer has to go on when they approach me.