Open Carry In The News

[jlangton]

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?

To answer the first question.
It is a fact that it is MUCH easier and safer to draw from an openly carried holster than it is to draw from concealment. I'm not talking about one person that can draw their particular gun from concealment faster than I could from an openly carried holster-I'm talking about the same person...draw with the gun concealed,and then draw from an openly carried holster. The openly carried gun will be produced to a defensive ready much faster than from proper concealment.

The second question..
It is very possible that the number of businesses that prohibit firearms may rise,but that's where you teach them via their bottom line. No gun carry by law abiding citizens, no money. It's just that simple. Business follows the money-period. The biggest problem I see with that tactic.....nobody in this country sticks together on anything anymore.
JL

[Mike1951]

The second question..
It is very possible that the number of businesses that prohibit firearms may rise,but that's where you teach them via their bottom line. No gun carry by law abiding citizens, no money. It's just that simple. Business follows the money-period. The biggest problem I see with that tactic.....nobody in this country sticks together on anything anymore.

While I wish it wasn't so, we are few and the folks who would react negatively to seeing guns are many.

From a financial standpoint, if forced to make a choice, the businesses would give up our trade in nothing flat.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I didn't realize that the other 44 states allowed open carry.

Don't be too surprised; there aren't 44 states where people actually to this to any extent. What is technically "legal" and what is done in everyday life is markedly different. As others have said, it's legal for me to throw an AR-15 over my shoulder and walk into my downtown Houston office building. But I've never seen it done; not once in 58 years of living and working in and around Houston.

I have traveled all over this country for more than 30 years and I can count on both hands the number of times I've seen non-LEOs openly carrying in anything but a sporting setting (hunting, shooting range, etc.) When open-carry started becoming a big issue in Texas 2 or 3 years ago, I started asking people who travel about their experience. I have never had anyone tell me that open-carry is common in any state. Admittedly, most, but not all, of my travel and the travel of others with whom I have spoken about this issue is to larger cities, so open-carry may be more common in rural areas of those states. But what happens in rural areas has little political impact as large cities equal large voting blocks.

So don't believe that open-carry is a common, everyday occurrence by large portions of the public in these 44 states. The anecdotal information we get from the Internet doesn't form a basis to say open-carry is commonplace and that it doesn't generate problems with people's response. I'm sure the stories told by supporters of open-carry are accurate, but they are limited in number and scope.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The second question..
It is very possible that the number of businesses that prohibit firearms may rise,but that's where you teach them via their bottom line. No gun carry by law abiding citizens, no money. It's just that simple. Business follows the money-period. The biggest problem I see with that tactic.....nobody in this country sticks together on anything anymore.
JL

It won't happen. Roughly 2% of the Texas population are CHLs; 98% are not. A business owner concerned about profits, or a manager whose compensation or continued employment depends upon profits, will have an easy economic decision to make. They can ignore customer complaints about people wearing guns and risk alienating 98% of the of the population, or they can post 30.06 signs and risk alienating 2%. We will not win that economic battle, especially when dealing with large chain stores.

I wish we had the economic muscle to change company policy, but the sad truth is we do not. We see very few 30.06 signs for one reason only -- our guns are out of sight, so they are out of other people's minds.

Chas.

[BigBlueDodge]

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).

So I'm unclear of your opinion. It seems as your response says that if a religion advocates 50 year old men marrying and having children with 11-12yr old girls, as long as it doesn't impede your rights, you support their right to practice those religious practices? Your answer didn't have a clear, agreement or disagreement.

[Charles L. Cotton]

To answer the first question.
It is a fact that it is MUCH easier and safer to draw from an openly carried holster than it is to draw from concealment. I'm not talking about one person that can draw their particular gun from concealment faster than I could from an openly carried holster-I'm talking about the same person...draw with the gun concealed,and then draw from an openly carried holster. The openly carried gun will be produced to a defensive ready much faster than from proper concealment.

My draw times are less than one second slower when I'm drawing from concealment v. open-carry. Typically, it's closer to .5 to .7 seconds. Yes it takes some practice, but not am much as many people may believe.

Open-carry isn't about safety, it's about choice. I personally believe the cost will be far too high in terms of drastic increases in the number of places that are off-limits either statutorily, or by way of 30.06 signs.

Chas.

[Darwood]

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).

So I'm unclear of your opinion. It seems as your response says that if a religion advocates 50 year old men marrying and having children with 11-12yr old girls, as long as it doesn't impede your rights, you support their right to practice those religious practices? Your answer didn't have a clear, agreement or disagreement.

While I agree that those are some bad examples, a 50 year old man having children with 11-12 year old girls impedes on the girl's rights.

[FireMedicRogers]

I am a resident of Colorado and we have the open carry law. I have never heard of any issues with open carry in the news or problems that have arisen by having it. I am also a current CHL holder and never open carry but it’s nice to have the option if needed.

Good Luck!

[BigBlueDodge]

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?

To answer the first question.
It is a fact that it is MUCH easier and safer to draw from an openly carried holster than it is to draw from concealment. I'm not talking about one person that can draw their particular gun from concealment faster than I could from an openly carried holster-I'm talking about the same person...draw with the gun concealed,and then draw from an openly carried holster. The openly carried gun will be produced to a defensive ready much faster than from proper concealment.

Yes, I understand that it is faster. That has been the top argument I've seen from Open Carry proponents. But tell me how much faster, 1/10 second, 1/2 second, 1 second, 2 seconds. My counter question is how many confrontations where a CHL user drew his weapon was affected by the speed of the draw? The incidents I've read on here where cases where the CHL holder had plenty of time to draw, and I didn't see anyone complaining the time it took to draw their weapon. How bout let's take this Open Carry argument even further. Let's advocate that everyone can openly carry their gun IN THEIR HANDS, because that is faster than drawing from an open holster. Let's just eliminate the holster variable. I mean the time it takes to draw from an open holster, versus just carrying the gun around in my hand could cost me my life, and therefore it is within my rights to carry my gun in my hand to properly protect myself.

The second question..
It is very possible that the number of businesses that prohibit firearms may rise,but that's where you teach them via their bottom line. No gun carry by law abiding citizens, no money. It's just that simple. Business follows the money-period. The biggest problem I see with that tactic.....nobody in this country sticks together on anything anymore.
JL

"may rise".....If all of the Open Carry proponents assume that there may be only a slight rise in the number of businesses who prohibit handguns as a result of Open Carry, then I think you guys are fooling yourselfs. If that is a core basis of your argument for Open Carry, then I don't think this will go anywhere.

The populate is approx. 20milion in Texas. The number of CHL owners are 290K. We amount to roughly 1.5% of the total population. Who do you think is going to impact these businesses bottom line more? The 98.5% of the non gun toting population or the 1.5% of the gun toting population? I doubt very seriously that we will hurt anyone's bottom line.

Look, I don't like anyone telling me what I can or can't do. However, this open carry debate appears to be more about political posturing, and beliefs than it is about practical safety reasons. When I look through all of the emotions in responses, I just see more negative outcomes, than positive outcomes, as a result of legalizing open carry.

[agbullet2k1]

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).

So I'm unclear of your opinion. It seems as your response says that if a religion advocates 50 year old men marrying and having children with 11-12yr old girls, as long as it doesn't impede your rights, you support their right to practice those religious practices? Your answer didn't have a clear, agreement or disagreement.

I prefer to keep the worms in the can. That being said, I could point out at least one thing I personally cannot stand about every major religion (even some denominations of Christianity, of which I am one for disclosure sake). I definitely don't want to start a religious argument, so I'll leave it at that. PM me if you must know.

While I agree that those are some bad examples, a 50 year old man having children with 11-12 year old girls impedes on the girl's rights.

That was the point I was trying to make. You can be upset about a certain practice all you want, but unless it violates someone's rights, then it is protected by 1A. That's why I included the "unless..." part. An 11 year old is certainly being denied her rights by a 50 year old in that circumstance, and in that instance I believe it is legally justifiable and necessary to step in and take action. A goat has no human rights, and by suicide you are only violating your own rights (for the record, I still have a problem with it morally), so I feel less comfortable with gov't stepping in then, although I wouldn't necessarily try to protest it.

Also for the record, those last two examples were meant to be a bit sarcastic, sorry if it was taken differently. I do not advocate goat slaughter except for tasty food purposes, and I had Japanese honor suicides in mind with the last one, not the purple sheets UFO cults.

[anygunanywhere]

If my religion says that 50 year old men can marry and have children with 11 yr old girls.

Established history and legal precedent in natural and common law already make this act unacceptable in established civil society. This is not a good example to support your assertion and is an extreme.

Not supporting open carry is not an extreme and will not require extreme measures. It is legal in 44 states. Marrying 11 year old girls is not.

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?

You bet I will. Animal sacrifice to whoever you worship is no more wrong to me than accepting that seeing people worshipping a cow as grandpa or a girl born with a birth defect as a hindu goddess.

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 will not get into the discussion of absolute rights here because it would drag this off-topic.

Let me restate myself. If we. as second amendment believers, are ever going to make profound inroads into regaining our right as literally stated in the BOR, we must stop posturing and slinging these unfounded assertions about keeping and bearing our arms. All we do is provide ammo to the antis and put up a broken front.

If we were truly united in our cause as firearms owners we would be swimming in our freedom.

Absolute rights will be discussed another day. I am researching and consulting with advisors on other boards.

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.

Just because the government restricts a right that does not validate the restriction. Just because the SCOTUS upholds a right does not make the ruling correct. Tell that to the millions of aborted babies.

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.

If you shoot your Barret and kill someone you must be charged with murder. Murder is already against the law. Murder charges fall in line with natural and commona law. You already believe in the 4 Rules do you not? Why should I be infringed for your breaking the 4 Rules? Infringing on my rights because you break the rules is exactly what the current 21,000 gun control laws are all about.

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.

For someone to honestly state that laws keep the mentally deranged or any felon from obtaining firearms or prevents violence ignores established facts, facts we use to support concealed carry and eliminating unnecessary gun control laws. Are you for or against gun control? The ultimate goal of gun control is not to prevent the loonies from purchasing firearms, it is to take them all. You, BigBlueDodge can be declared mentally incompetent for pretty much any reason.

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?

OC gives you a slight edge in draw speed. It lets the BG see you are armed. Research the fallacy of "the BGs will take you out first". Yes, LEO are shot because BGs know they are armed. LEO go to places and respond to crimes in progress. People open carrying do not.

What difference does the advantage make to you if you are not going to OC anyway? Why do I have to convince you? What convinced you to carry in the first place? If packing concealed is what you want to do, go for it. Just support the cause. The cause is freeedom. The cause is no infringement. The amendment says "shall not be infringed". No other amendment says that. How can people support infringement when the amendment says no infringement? The first amendment states "Congreess shall make no law...." but congress has made laws. We allowed it to happen and we now live in a society where we hold the Constitution and BOR as almost sacred but allow our government to spit on them with impunity and then people insist that they spit on it some more by insisting on more infringements in the form of useless laws. Amazing. Pitiful.

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?

I am not certain. In my travels, I can tell you that Texas has more signs than I see anywhere. I honestly think if we the packers stopped making such a fussover signs they would go away. Some say the legislature was wise in the 30.06 law but I think it made signs more of a problem. I have OCed in several states. Most people do not care.

We are so afraid of asserting our rights that we will cower in fear over any attempt to reestablish our rights to the freedoms we once enjoyed.

Personally, I am to the point where if anyone questions my activism and comittment to my rights I will very emphatically insist that they go somewhere where they can wet themselves and bleat with the other sheep. They need to get over my exercising my right to keep AND BEAR arms and minfd their own business.

Their rights end at their nose and mine begin at mine.

What I have on my hip is my business.

Anygunanywhere

[anygunanywhere]

If open carry was an issue at all in the 44 states where it is legal then it would be made illegal faster than a democrat changing his position based on a poll in an election year.

Insisting that we not broach the subject in Texas for fear it will make things worse would be buckling in fear to the antis and take us back to the Ma Richards days. You do remember those days, don't you?

The antis are all smoke and mirrors. We have rught on our side.

Anygunanywhere

[jlangton]

If open carry was an issue at all in the 44 states where it is legal then it would be made illegal faster than a democrat changing his position based on a poll in an election year.


Anygunanywhere

Well put and the hard,cold truth.
JL

[jlangton]

I think the biggest mentality here is that of some CHL holders feeling like they're part of some "elite" group of people,and that allowing OC by everybody would somehow invalidate the value of their CHL. Maybe it's a feeling of loss of the $200+ for the class and licensing when everybody else wouldn't have to pay.
IMO, CHL holders would be minimally affected by an OC law if the Texas legislature were to allow the simplistic "ghostbuster" or other "no guns allowed" signs to be the stopping point for OC like a 30.06 is the stopping point for a CHL holder. It'd be really simple to enforce that since people would be OPENLY carrying their firearms.
JL

[135boomer]

Open carry would also be another obstacle the anti gunners would have to deal with before they get to our CHLs. I'm all for that!