Open Carry In The News

[drw]

Unlicensed concealed carry would be acceptable to me, and I'd get off the open carry bandwagon. Until they allow unlicensed concealed carry, though, I support the concept of allowing unlicensed individuals to openly bear arms.

And I guess the desire to have them "openly carried" is so that law enforcement can see the arms and know they are there.

[HerbM]

Unlicensed concealed carry would be acceptable to me, and I'd get off the open carry bandwagon. Until they allow unlicensed concealed carry, though, I support the concept of allowing unlicensed individuals to openly bear arms.

And I guess the desire to have them "openly carried" is so that law enforcement can see the arms and know they are there.

Apparently it just works -- bad guys don't do it because the police would see it and they cannot legally possess the firearm. Much like bad guys don't like holsters very often.

In GA, CHL/CCW requires the use of a holster.

[flintknapper]

Just in case you really want to discuss this topic, please read the following threads in their entirety to make sure your particular viewpoint hasn't been discussed at length already. Also, those new to the forum can get caught up on the extensive discussion on this topic so far.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... f=7&t=1875

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=10360

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=13096

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=13805

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 23&t=15444

Just trying to save some folks valuable internet discussion hours.

And if you like a little “spice� in your open carry discussion:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... Open+Carry

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... y&start=30

[MBGuy]

I swore I'd never respond to this, but oh well......

My step-daughter lives in Kentucky, which is an open carry state, without restrictions or licenses. I've never seen anyone open carry though I read about people doing it, mostly without issue, on opencarry.org. Next time I'm there for a week, I intend to do a little bit of testing the waters to see how it goes.

I've open carried in Louisiana, mostly while putting gas in the car as I was travelling thus wearing the shoulder holster. No one batted an eye. I passed the football with my son in the street doing open carry, no problems. This was a belt holster and you'd probably have to look real close to see that there was a gun there, so I'm not even sure anyone saw it.

The point? No machoism. Nothing political, though getting the general population used to the idea that good guys can be gun owners too, not just criminals and law enforcement, would be an added benefit. Imagine the hard job that the antis would have if everyone was so used to seeing guns in the control of good people in the general population!

Personally, why I WOULD like to see open carry allowed is to remove the paranoia surrounding accidental flashing, or just when it's plain inconvenient to wear a cover. There are times when I've worn a belt holster under a suit coat, but then while waiting for the bus in 95 degree weather, it'd be nice to be able to take my coat off. Same goes for inside the bus when the AC isn't working. When getting in the car and having to look around to make sure no one sees you take your coat off or put it on when you've arrived. Wearing it open on your property? Doesn't matter how hot and humid it is, make sure you cover it up somehow when you go talk to your neighbor, or go down to the corner to get gas for your mower.......on and on and on.

My point is that I sincerely doubt that we're all of a sudden going to see a bunch of open carry in restaurants, stores, etc. For all the people that talk the talk, very few are going to walk the walk. What it would do is add convenience to us that mostly conceal by not having to constantly worry about it. Heck, license wise, do as Tennessee. The license there is handgun carry, open or concealed, you pick. I really think that this is a right that we should get back, even if it's just going to be for the sake of having that right given back to us since it's rarely going to be excercised from what I've seen.

[agbullet2k1]

Personally, why I WOULD like to see open carry allowed is to remove the paranoia surrounding accidental flashing, or just when it's plain inconvenient to wear a cover. There are times when I've worn a belt holster under a suit coat, but then while waiting for the bus in 95 degree weather, it'd be nice to be able to take my coat off. Same goes for inside the bus when the AC isn't working. When getting in the car and having to look around to make sure no one sees you take your coat off or put it on when you've arrived.

I came here to say exactly that.

Heck, license wise, do as Tennessee. The license there is handgun carry, open or concealed, you pick.

My instructor in TN told us a few courts in the state had even ruled it was legal to just carry it around in your hand, as long as the barrel never pointed at anyone. Police will stop and hassle you, but you'll be on your way when your licence checks out. In TN, they also have badges that can worn next to the holster so that if it is accidentally shown, everyone thinks your a LEO anyway. The badges say CHP, which plays on the highway patrol acronym (concealed handgun permit), but even those are ruled legal because they do nothing other than correctly display the wearers certifications.

I think there is a lot of special factors that go into a person's carry preference. One thing that comes to mind is the big city/small town difference. In a small town, most everyone is likely to know you or about you, and seeing you with a revealed firearm won't shock them much. Try that in a big city where crime is high and no one knows you from a common thug, and you're going to get a bit more attention. Being on the big city side, I prefer to keep everything under wraps, but I would like to see the whole printing/paranoia stuff disappear.

[DoubleJ]

SAY OC AGAIN, I DARE YA

[bdickens]

Oh, no. Not the CHL badge!

[jlangton]

I'll start out by saying I'm all for OC. IMO-it should be up to the individual to choose whether they want to OC or CC. Whether I do it or not is irrelevant, whether YOU choose to do it or not is irrelevant. How many times have you been in public and seen a person in plain clothes with a properly holstered gun on their side? I do all the time,and up until recently-I assumed that the person was some type of LEO. Has it ever incited a riot, panic, or heightened sense of paranoia around myself or other in the vicinity? Nope. Never has, never will. The fact that the gun is properly holstered in a secure and safe manner goes a long way in the comfort level of the public,and in acceptance of any type of OC. People for the most part are ignorant, and assume that anybody with a properly holstered gun is some type of LEO, and there won't be the panic and hysteria that the liberals are trying to convince everybody of.
Would I OC? It would depend on the situation. Most of the time,no. But the convenience would be nice.
JL

[DoubleJ]

I'll start out by saying I'm all for OC.

*clack clack clack clack clack*

take it to the other threads

[israel67]

My point is that I sincerely doubt that we're all of a sudden going to see a bunch of open carry in restaurants, stores, etc. For all the people that talk the talk, very few are going to walk the walk. What it would do is add convenience to us that mostly conceal by not having to constantly worry about it. Heck, license wise, do as Tennessee. The license there is handgun carry, open or concealed, you pick. I really think that this is a right that we should get back

When you really think about it, it isn't 'a right' at all.

One does not have to ask permission to exercise 'a right'.

I don't need a licence to breathe, or to eat, or to drink water.

When you need to ask the state's permission to do something, that act is not a right; it is a privilege.

It's interesting to read quite often the caveat, 'sure, we all want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys ...'

Well last time I looked, the II Amendment was pretty simple ...

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'

Since when did criminals, drug users and the insane cease to be part of 'the people' ?

I don't have a suitable answer to that question, BTW.

[israel67]

Oh, no. Not the CHL badge!

Want one! Want one!!

[anygunanywhere]

Any individual that owns a firearm and considers himself a free man must be cautious about what their stated beliefs are with respect to their rights.

Anything less than demanding and fighting for your God given rights is inviting the government to take them away.

Whether or not you would open carry is irrelevant. You have the right to free speech and have the right to set your soap box up on the streeet corner and preach about armageddon if you want. Are you going to? Maybe not. DO you want to keep that right? I pray so.

During the Heller oral arguments, and in some of the doscuments filed in support of Heller, the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled the CONCEALED carry is not protected as part of the RKBA guaranteed under the 2A.

IANAL and IANA history professor so this is how I understand how our system works. If I am wrong I trust I will be corrected.

Our laws are based on natural law and English common law. English common law forbade concealed carry of weapons. The royals did not trust the subjects with concealed weapons.

Concealed carry can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. If the court eve restores the RKBA fully it will be open carry. When open carry is forbidden then the second amendment is infringed.

The court also needs to rule that the 2A applies to the states.

A right licensed is not a right but a priviledge.

Our rights are what define us as free men. How we fight to recover and maintain our rights will define our Texas and American way of life. Our American and Texian forefathers fought and died to win our freedoms and define our rights.

I find the fact that people who claim to be free and yet publicly state that they do not care about significant aspects of their rights as foreign and unacceptable.

The Second Amendment must be held as a whole. No part of any infringement is acceptable. Stating that you oppose open carry because blah blah blah is the same as the shotgun/deer rifle fair weather gun owner stating publicly that military style weapons are not necassary and should be banned. If you state publicly that you oppose open carry than you must accept someone else's infringement on certain part of what you think is acceptable as RKBA. DO you like Glocks or hollow points? Do you like semi auto shotguns? 1911s? Imported firearms? No matter what your likes and dislikes about the RKBA, remember that there are people out there, legislators and others rabidly willing and able to stomp your second amendment into a dust pile and remove your weapons from your posession.

This is the main reason that the antis have made such massive inroads against us. We can not agree among ourselves about what is acceptable. We give the antis the ammunition they need to take our rights.

The only thing that is acceptable is no infringement, period.

ANygunanywhere

[BigBlueDodge]

Anygun,

I applaud you for the passion you have for the 2nd Amendment, and we are fortunate to have individuals passionate for protecting our rights. However, I have to say that we should be reasonable in interpreting what rights really mean, and the scope of those rights. The constitution says that " law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If my religion says that 50 year old men can marry and have children with 11 yr old girls, or my religion allows me to sacrifice animals for my deity (cats/dogs/chickens) are you going to stick to your guns and say that my right to freedom of religion protects me in those actions? Or is your assessment of the control over rights based on the specific right (meaning, do you treat all rights equally in your opinion)

I have a hard time buy that if something is labeled a right, then the government has absolutely no control over the conditions of that right. The extremist view for 2nd amendment has no control over gun ownership, and it is completely within a individuals right to use a Barret .50 call gun to shoot an intruder breaking into his home. We shouldn't care that the round would also pass through the next 3-4 houses, possibly killing innocent bystanders, after it explodes my target. The 2nd ammendment says nothing about the age, mental state, or criminal history of an individual. Without restrictions it is possible for people with known mental issues to keep firearms. It would also be legal for murders, rapists, wife beaters, child molestors to purchase firearms because it is their right. Your view is that the government cannot place restrictions on my 2nd ammendment right, which is hard for me to accept.

The more I hear about the "Open Carry" debate, it becomes very clear that "Open Carry" is NOT about providing MORE security, it more because the government says I can't do it. I asked the question in my previous post, but no-one answered it, so I'll ask it again. What does Open Carry give me that Concealed Carry does not that REALISTICALLY makes me safer in a confrontation?

Second, for all of the people that say "I may/may not Open Carry, but I should at least have the choice". Let me ask you this. Do you think that Open Carry will increase the number of businesses that prohibit gun carry, or do you assume that it will stay the same as it is now?

[agbullet2k1]

I have a hard time buy that if something is labeled a right, then the government has absolutely no control over the conditions of that right. The extremist view for 2nd amendment has no control over gun ownership, and it is completely within a individuals right to use a Barret .50 call gun to shoot an intruder breaking into his home. We shouldn't care that the round would also pass through the next 3-4 houses after it explodes my target. Your view is that the government cannot place restrictions on my 2nd ammendment, which I cannot buy.

Owning any gun you wish shouldn't be illegal, but killing your innocent neighbor through negligence has never been legal. A person's rights should not be infringed so long as those rights do not impede someone else's and are extended to everyone. That is why slander and libel are not protected free speech, but considered illegal (although civil, not criminal). That is also why religious establishments which practice things some would consider horrible, like underage marriage, goat slaughter, ritual suicide, etc., are not impeeded, unless they trample on someone else's rights (I do not mean feelings).

Therefore it should not be illegal for me to own a .50 if I wish (which I don't) since owning a gun hurts no one, but I will be held accountable if by using it I infringe on someone else's right to life.

[Bart]

Some people don't like open carry. Some people don't like blacks voting. I don't think prejudice is a reason to deny second amendment or fifteenth amendment rights of american citizens.