The Anti - Open Carry Epidemic

a reply to: Identified

I conceal carry. I am of two minds about open carry. Its important to protect the 2nd, but the big problem I have with open carry is that it makes the person person something of a target. I guess its o.k. for the situationally aware, but unless you ARE situationally aware, its going to be a problem, especially in crowds.

Once I noticed a cop in a check out line at the grocery store chatting up a girl friend. He was of course in full kit and never saw me behind him in line. I could have easily removed his fire arem.

Sad really.

a reply to: agenda51

An old timer when I was taking my safety class declared that the best place to keep a second magazine is in a second gun. He also suggested that the first step in cleaning a gun is to load another gun. That guy was awesome.

a reply to: TonyS

Unless familiar with law enforcement holsters, you might have been unpleasantly surprised.

But if the conditioning is that the only people you see open carrying are law enforcement, then how long before the assumption becomes a person must be law enforcement if they are open carrying?

That has bad things written all over it.

a reply to: Ahabstar

That has bad things written all over it.

Which is precisely why we do our shopping as early in the A.M as humanely feasible.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: Liquesence

Some will say it falls under the "Shall not be infringed" and ( I think without looking) 45 States allow it and more than half are Permissive States.

But we can slide into the 9th Amendment if the Second is a problem for you.

Where does it say or is interpreted that the "right to bear" arms is synonymous with the "right to open carry in public?"

“Shall not be infringed” .......there, it says it right there

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Identified

How many people open carried before?

I think I've only ever seen one in a hardware store.

It's more common in certain areas. It is not unusual to see someone open carrying in Alaska, mostly because a lot of folks pack big bore handguns for bear and moose protection and you can't easily conceal a 7.5" barrel.

Yeah, it's expected in some places, but in a Walmart the only reason I can see is to intimidate people who it makes uncomfortable.

Face it, we live in a different reality here. In many cities guns are only seen in the hands of gangs and the reality is different. Here my first thought is what a nice gun, in Seattle it would be find cover fast.

I do understand that. My point, mostly, was that for us up here you do sometimes run into the store (not Walmart or Fred's for me, but 3 Bears or Carr's are my go tos) when you're on your way out to fish, hunt, or hike and if you're packing a bear gun it's not likely to be a concealable weapon for the most part. I absolutely do not feel like leaving it in your vehicle is ever a good option up here. Hell, they break into vehicles in packed parking lots in broad daylight all over town these days (a stand your ground castle law would change that quick, but that's for a different topic). So the options are go to the river with a smaller caliber or unarmed (neither an option in my book), go without whatever item you needed to run into the store to grab in the first place (again, not a preferred option), or put the piece on your belt and conduct your business like a responsible adult living in a country founded on freedoms rather than fear.

That's a fair point to make.

There are two things in play here. It's legal to open carry, although I don't unless I'm in an area where I need bear protection or plan on shooting for recreation. The stores have a right to decide if they allow it or not and it does make some uncomfortable.

I think open carrying in a store just to prove a point, as many people apparently do, is actually giving the anti-gun crowd ammunition. "Look at the gun nut who can't even go food shopping without a gun".

I think there is a happy medium where gun enthusiasts keep it out of the faces of those who are not comfortable around guns. I'm as pro 2nd as a person can be, but I've never felt the need to open carry while shopping. I'm not bothered by others doing it, but I'm not all people. I do think people doing it makes things worse and helps out the anti-gun crowd.

a reply to: Identified

Im going to be honest: if your state has open/concealed carry and you choose open carry it tells me one thing: you are more interested in virtue signalling your gun viewpoints and less interested in having protection when it comes time.

Any gunman on the loose who isn't insane would certainly seek to remove armed people from the area before continuing a rampage. The element of surprise is critical to survival in any confrontation, if you can maintain it.

So asking me to not open carry my .40 is a no brainer. I wouldn't anyway, unless i was hunting out in the sticks. No one needs to know how ready I am to survive until the time comes.

a reply to: network dude

Seems the entertainment industry is filled with them, loudmouthed blow hards, braggarts, and political ass kisses.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ohio has always had open carry for free. CCW requires classes, background checks and the permit itself which does have to be renewed like a drivers license. All of those cost money. Is it right to disarm or disparage the poor?

And I’ll tell you my dog in the fight isn’t that high outside of protecting gun owners as I very rarely carry open or concealed.

LOL.....all this anti open carry talk is making me want to start carrying in the open and forget the concealed. Maybe I will just do both.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Identified

Im going to be honest: if your state has open/concealed carry and you choose open carry it tells me one thing: you are more interested in virtue signalling your gun viewpoints and less interested in having protection when it comes time.

Thats my point I made way early on. If you are truly concerned about protection and lucky enough to live in a state that has a easy CCP why advertise.

If I am looking to do harm, the guy open carrying will be the first to go IMHO. Its a basic concept no? Eliminate the obvious threat first.

Better to be the wolf in sheep's clothing than the obvious target

a reply to: FredT

Far more likely the guy looking to do harm sees someone open carrying and says "uh oh... maybe I should try somewhere else" especially in regards to thugs looking to score a robbery haul rather than see their name in the headlines, deified by the gunphobes unfortunately existing among us.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Perhaps but how do you quantify that? If you look at violent crime by State the numbers are somewhat close comparing violent crimes (per 100,000) say Texas and the way way more restrictive California 433 vs 449. Another open carry state Tennessee is a shocking 651. So I'm not sure open carry prevents anything and statistically there seems to little correlation between open carry and crime reduction.

ucr.fbi.gov...

a reply to: FredT

There is a difference between an open carry state. And a significant population in a state that openly carries. Ohio has always been one but very few carry and even less do in small towns with populations less than 2500.

In fact I have not encountered one unexpected open carry since CCW became legal. And by unexpected I mean in places other than a gun shop/range, woods/fishing, gun show. You just don’t see it walking around town or the store in small towns where everybody knows everybody. Well other than LEO, Park Rangers, Security Guards, etc. They carry of course.

a reply to: FredT

Neither side can exactly quantify their positions. I could say the fact that Cali, with their extremely more restrictive laws, having stats as close to the freer Texas shows the laws do nothing to reduce actual gun crime.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Identified

I could almost post the same reply I made in another thread about you tube censorship

All of those names named in the list are corporate owned businesses. They can prevent open carry if they want to. There is no law stopping them from demanding a dress code.

Remember all those signs on store doors? No shirt? No shoes? No service.... This is the same thing. Open carry? No service and no admittance.

Don't like it? Fight back with your pocketbook and don't go there anymore.

No actually it very different than the old "No Shirt, No Shoes" thing. We have not "right" to either a shirt or shoes. We do however have right concerning the keeping and bearing of arms. They are very different.

There are laws that may actually stop those who want to prevent open carry in their stores, or indeed anywhere else.

consider:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 USCode; paragraph 242

Perhaps some business owners, and their attorneys should become aware of the law.

a reply to: james1947

on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race

Nice try but those are the operative words there. Has nothing to do with a citizen simply exercising their right being denied directly, but that they were denied for discrimination reasons. But keep digging, you can find a better one because you were close.


UPDATED: Maybe I was wrong on my reading. But now to determine if the announcement was by a person acting as a public official, by securing the safety of the general public that would engage that person in a specific circumstance. All that would take is elected or public officials endorsing the position as public safety. And I think we have had plenty of brain dead big mouths do that already.

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

Source

a reply to: james1947

I think you are misapplying this particular law to suit the circumstances.

Carry laws are a patchwork state to state and there has been conflicting court rulings on the matter and even SCOTUS int he landmark District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 stated

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

originally posted by: Identified
Might as well start a thread that lists the places that are now "requesting" customers not to open carry firearms in their establishments.

Walmart
Sams Club
Kroger
Fred Meyer
CVS
Walgreens
Wegmans

This is only the beginning...

And I'm sure that whatever these retail chains sell, can be purchased elsewhere.

a reply to: Ironclad1964

Possibly, but not at the prices people would expect and thats the bottom line. People will boycott until its not financially convenient This kind of boycott will have Zero legs as it represents very little of the population