Open Carry

[texas_teacher]

"cop killer" ammo. You mention "armor piercing ammo" and their eyes light up.

In a way aren't our shirts "armor"... they protect us from the harmful rays of the sun... That being said almost any shit will poke a hole in my 50/50...

If you hit someone in the head chances are it will kill them... Sadly wearing a star doesn't offer any additional protection...

 

[Big country]

My "Security officer" badge is made out of the same stuff and made the same way that allot of LEOs badges are and I doubt it would stop any bullets. LOL

 

[randmplumbingllc]

I have examined this thread and I have yet to see a strong argument for open carry. The fact that California allows open carry "unloaded" is laughable.

I can be convinced, but yet I have read nothing to support open carry other than "constitutional right", which I would welcome a "constitutional" explanation.

There is no "argument", you have a "RIGHT" to bear arms. Does that not mean anything ?

I know lots of people that open carry ( in Arizona ) for different reasons. Some can't afford the State fee's, some can't afford to pay for the State REQUIRED class. If you think that it is not about the money for the State, think again. Next time you are up to renew your TX CHL, ask them to waive the fee's cuz you are broke and see how that goes.

Do you think that only people that have money should be able to protect themselves ? The little old man, that can barely pay for food and his med's, is he less important then someone that makes good money and that can afford a license to carry.

I have read nothing to support open carry other than "constitutional right",

Outside of people not wanting their names in a database, for government to confiscate their weapons, like after Hurricane Katrina and the reasons listed above, I think that it is a RIGHT, is enough !

 

[texas_teacher]

My "Security officer" badge is made out of the same stuff and made the same way that allot of LEOs badges are and I doubt it would stop any bullets. LOL

And you just have to hope and pray that they aim at that 4" x 2" target if it will stop bullets eh?

 

[APatriot]

My friend,

There is no "argument", you have a "RIGHT" to bear arms. Does that not mean anything ?

I know lots of people that open carry ( in Arizona ) for different reasons. Some can't afford the State fee's, some can't afford to pay for the State REQUIRED class. If you think that it is not about the money for the State, think again. Next time you are up to renew your TX CHL, ask them to waive the fee's cuz you are broke and see how that goes.

Do you think that only people that have money should be able to protect themselves ? The little old man, that can barely pay for food and his med's, is he less important then someone that makes good money and that can afford a license to carry.

I have read nothing to support open carry other than "constitutional right",

Outside of people not wanting their names in a database, for government to confiscate their weapons, like after Hurricane Katrina and the reasons listed above, I think that it is a RIGHT, is enough !

I understand your argument relative to fee affordability. Do you not think the state could possibly waive such a fee for an applicant, yet that applicant meet all other criteria to carry concealed? I would support that.

I simply see much more advantage in regard to concealment vs. open carry.

Besides the constitutional implications, what other supportive argument can you provide to show the benefit of open vs. concealed carry, even in the event a fee waiver would be granted?

I have yet to read a supportive argument, besides the constitutional issue. I am open to reading such arguments for open carry.

 

[Shorts]

...and "I see no tactical advantage to open carry" is not a strong enough argument against OC.

 

[Shorts]

I doubt felons who shouldn't be carrying would carry OC if the trend of "open carry is cause for a stop" continues.

As we've seen in videos above, LEOs will detain an OCer to determine "who you are and if you can be carrying a gun"

 

[APatriot]

My friend,

...and "I see no tactical advantage to open carry" is not a strong enough argument against OC.

Your statement above is circular in nature, but I would argue if there is no tactical advantage to open carry, why is open carry even an issue?

 

[Shorts]

Your statement above is circular in nature, but I would argue if there is no tactical advantage to open carry, why is open carry even an issue?

What concern is it of an antiOCer if an OCer has no tactical advantage?

What concern is it of an antiOCer if someone does OC even though the anti wouldn't do it?


I'm curious as to why those arguments are brought against OC when OC is debated.

I'm curious as to why any arguments are brought against OC from fellow gun carry supporters.


Why is there such animosity towards OC from fellow gun owners? What is the hang up? Why s defensive? Why does it bother CC-Only people?

Does "no tactical advantage" really get the fires going? Really? That's why you don't want people to OC who actually have the brass to OC? Tactical advantage? That's it? That's why you don't like it?


Carrying with an empty chamber is no tactical advantage either, but people do it, don't they? I don't agree with an empty chamber and I'd never walk around with an empty chamber, but if someone is intent on doing so, what does it hurt me that that guy does that?



I guess I am just pressing you for your argument against OC since you're pressing to hear good arguments for OC. Isn't the entire point of carrying any gun so that you have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Regardless of the method, isn't just "having it" argument enough? Or are there other concerns that need to be addressed past that?


APatriot, I'm not necessarily targeting you. Just the overall general tone of the thread. I'm talking outloud (procrastinating on starting dinner!), just tossing questions out there. I would like to see OC legal. Don't know if I'd have the guts to do it but I don't see what the harm is.


I guess like you are wanting more to be convinced OC is a good idea, I want to see more that OC is a bad idea.

 

[APatriot]

My friend,

What concern is it of an antiOCer if an OCer has no tactical advantage?

What concern is it of an antiOCer if someone does OC even though the anti wouldn't do it?


I'm curious as to why those arguments are brought against OC when OC is debated.

I'm curious as to why any arguments are brought against OC from fellow gun carry supporters.


Why is there such animosity towards OC from fellow gun owners? What is the hang up? Why s defensive? Why does it bother CC-Only people?

Does "no tactical advantage" really get the fires going? Really? That's why you don't want people to OC who actually have the brass to OC? Tactical advantage? That's it? That's why you don't like it?


Carrying with an empty chamber is no tactical advantage either, but people do it, don't they? I don't agree with an empty chamber and I'd never walk around with an empty chamber, but if someone is intent on doing so, what does it hurt me that that guy does that?



I guess I am just pressing you for your argument against OC since you're pressing to hear good arguments for OC. Isn't the entire point of carrying any gun so that you have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Regardless of the method, isn't just "having it" argument enough? Or are there other concerns that need to be addressed past that?


APatriot, I'm not necessarily targeting you. Just the overall general tone of the thread. I'm talking outloud (procrastinating on starting dinner!), just tossing questions out there. I would like to see OC legal. Don't know if I'd have the guts to do it but I don't see what the harm is.


I guess like you are wanting more to be convinced OC is a good idea, I want to see more that OC is a bad idea.

I am not anti-open carry. I just do not see why it is important, besides the fact it is a substandard tactical advantage compared to conceal carry. I simply have not seen a sound argument for open carry. That is my point. Please do not misinterpret and "spin" my meaning. I just want someone to effectively explain and support open carry and how it is more effective to conceal carry. That is all.

 

[Shorts]

Ok. So then I see no distinction between OC and CC. To the person carrying the gun, it's a matter of personal preference for ease of carry, clothing, climate, activities, even the gun being carried. Simple. On a personal preference note, I can draw a lot faster from my OWB than I can from my IWB. Especially with only one hand to throw the shirt tail. My OWB is more comfortable to wear than my IWB.


What is the standard you're setting as "effective". How do you define "effective"? And how can you measure it?

 

[APatriot]

My friend,

Ok. So then I see no distinction between OC and CC. To the person carrying the gun, it's a matter of personal preference for ease of carry, clothing, climate, activities, even the gun being carried. Simple. On a personal preference note, I can draw a lot faster from my OWB than I can from my IWB. Especially with only one hand to throw the shirt tail. My OWB is more comfortable to wear than my IWB.


What is the standard you're setting as "effective". How do you define "effective"? And how can you measure it?

If open carry is a personal preference for you then ok. I simply do not want to advertise that I am armed. In fact, I personally think open carry is too provocative when being armed and concealed is not. Sort of like - "speaking softly but carrying a big stick".

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Open carry IS a valid issue for the sole fact that it is improper and unconstitutional and goes against all logic in what is supposed to be a truly free society when you make things illegal for no other reason than you see no point to it. This nation was never intended to have laws against everything imaginable UNLESS you can prove a reason for it to be legal. You don't have to justify freedom of choice. That is a complete 180 degrees inverse from the perspective everyone should have. How things were intended to be is as few laws as possible, and everything is legal except in the few cases where there were extremely good reasons for them to be illegal (hurting others, etc). Things such as civilian possession of a nuclear bomb......that I think we can all agree should not be legal. Someone choosing to open carry their gun? It makes absolutely no difference and legislation against it is superficial at best. Everyone needs a perspective change. Instead of asking why we should make it legal, you NEED to be asking yourself is there even any reason this should not be legal? Freedom should be legal by default instead of being made subject to justification.

Think long and hard about my next statement. The more laws we have on the books, the less freedom we have. There is no need for 22,000 some odd firearms rules as there are in the US. We could have 22 rules instead and that would be enough, and it would certainly make everyone's lives easier including LEOs that have to enforce them. People have become so used to having every facet of their lives regulated to the point where, regardless of whether the law doesn't make sense, they will be opposed to changing or eliminating it as regulation is all they've ever known. Tell me by what legal and moral standard is there justification to have NFA laws that will not hassle one person for having a 16" rifle barrel, and will send another man to federal prison and charge him exorbitant fines for having a 15.9" barrel without applying for it and paying a $200 tax. This is absolute lunacy. There is no moral standard for having regulation that single-handedly creates criminals out of honest citizens that aren't hurting anyone. To top that off, go read a little into situations such as Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian ordeal. Regardless of whether you think those people were out there in their beliefs, the fact of the matter is the ATF was negligent and killed nearly 90 people in just those two cases over a matter of $200 tax fees not being paid on supposed NFA firearms. Whether those people were wackjobs or not, by what legal or moral standard should there have ever been regulation in place to put LEOs in a situation like that where they would negligently kill ~90 people over a barrel being 1/2" too short on a shotgun or what have you. I'm not necessarily for removing all laws on the books, I am simply saying that a handful of laws are all that's necessary, and regulations of superficial items serve no other purpose except to create more criminals out of honest people. Re-read the Constitution and re-learn your US and world history if you cannot understand this.

 

[Texas42]

Whether OC or CC is tactically better is a situation-dependant. More importantly, in regards to the constitutionality, it is completely irrelevent.

There have been very few, if any judicial rulings on the 2nd amendment (I do believe there are some in the works). The supreme court has been too afraid to take them. I'm not a lawyer or claim that I understand law any better than the next guy, but the arguement that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" => any gun law is unconstitutional isn't going to get us anywhere today. We have had gun laws for over a hundred years. Passion and belief that the 2nd amendment is the end all isn't enough. The precident has already been set. I know that most gun laws are stupid and completely worthless, but that is also irrelevent. The laws exist. Heck, OC was illegal in most towns in the "wild west." The 2nd amendment has yet to be "incorporated."

Logical and rational arguments explaining that good guys with more guns and an armed populace is good for society. More imporantly, it is important to explain to everyone the importance of a "free society" over a "safe society." We need to re-learn the importance of checks and balances and separation of powers.

The right to bear arms is there so we can defend ourselves from oppression. If we kept our government from becoming too powerful, then we wouldn't need to ever need to defend ourselves from the oppression of our own government.

Sig Fiend, I'm not completely disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that we won't get anywhere if we just shout the party line.

 

[Shorts]

If open carry is a personal preference for you then ok. I simply do not want to advertise that I am armed. In fact, I personally think open carry is too provocative when being armed and concealed is not. Sort of like - "speaking softly but carrying a big stick".

No one is asking you to.

 

[SC-Texas]

OC is necessary to secure the second amendment right to defend outrselves.

Personally, I want to be in a group were there are a few OCs while I am CC'g.

 

[randmplumbingllc]

I simply see much more advantage in regard to concealment vs. open carry.

Besides the constitutional implications, what other supportive argument can you provide to show the benefit of open vs. concealed carry, even in the event a fee waiver would be granted?

I have yet to read a supportive argument, besides the constitutional issue. I am open to reading such arguments for open carry.

What other argument do you need ? The Bill of Rights should be enough. Do you support the other parts in the bill of rights ? Freedom of speach ? Unreasonable searches and seizures ? Which of these should we legislate ? These are the things that make the U.S.A., the best place to live in the whole world.

You want more then the CONSTITUTION ? Well, I have a couple.

First, it could be argued that it s a deterrent . Most bad guy's want easy pickins, not someone armed. Must work for police officers, armored car curriers, security guards, etc. ?

Second, it is easier to acess, if needed. No shirt or jacket to get in the way.

Third, a fee waiver is never gonna happen. We all know that once the gov. gets a cash cow, they never let go. Look at income tax, was SUPPOSE to be a ONE time thing ! Yeah, right !

I simply see much more advantage in regard to concealment vs. open carry.

Now you are making my point for me. It should be MY CHOICE if I want to conceal OR open carry.

MY point has been made on several fronts. On the flip side what downside is there ? No one says YOU have to open carry. If you want a CHL, have one, or a few ! I just want the choice.

I lived in Arizona for 25 years and never heard of or had a problem open carrying. People still get CCW's there. I think they have issued a few 100k of them. (just guessing) The State still gets their money. No one even looks at you funny there. It is as normal as seeing a police officer with a sidearm. I also like the fact that, if you have a CCW there and someone sees your weapon, you don't and cannot face any charges for not properly concealing, like you can here.

 

[texas_teacher]

I am not anti-open carry. I just do not see why it is important, besides the fact it is a substandard tactical advantage compared to conceal carry. I simply have not seen a sound argument for open carry. That is my point. Please do not misinterpret and "spin" my meaning. I just want someone to effectively explain and support open carry and how it is more effective to conceal carry. That is all.

Regardless of whether or not concealed carry has tactical advantages over open carry it basically comes down to one thing that people keep saying... A person displaying a weapon on the outside of their body is more prone to problems... either from a LEO or from other individuals... Can't the same be said for a person that wears diamonds around their neck and on their hands?... Aren't they creating problems for themselves but yet we don't make a law to keep them from having problems... What about the girl that prances around town with her tw*t hanging out of her shorts and her n*pples showing through a fishnet top... She's created problems for herself but yet there's no laws for her either... Just because something creates problems for an individual doesn't mean that it is worth a law...


And yes I am all too aware that someone is going to get uptight because I implied the word tw*t and also because they think public decency laws prohibit something like that but the fact is we see it everyday... The majority of people are immune to it now... Why can't it be the same way for a gun on hip...

 

[Shorts]

What is the standard you're setting as "effective". How do you define "effective"? And how can you measure it?

^^^ Still waiting on that answer

 

[Dcav]

Interesting post. <---wish it was beer and not popcorn