Grooming and Manner of Dress for O.C.

[preventec47]

I hate to admit this but to be non politically correct, it matters to me the kind of individual
I might see that is open carrying a gun. I dont see it mentioned very much but if
someone that looks like a gang banger or punker with mohawk and tatoos and piercings
etc or is dressed shoddily and ungroomed and perhaps even walking with a particular
swagger or strut, open carrying a firearm, I get worried as hell myself.

I know what I am talking about cannot be defined by legislation but if I see this activity
my self I honestly hope that the police would check them out and harass them a little bit.
I dont mind there being some discretion that can be exercised even if it means that some
overzealous cowboy L.E. miight harass me sometime. I know this, if I ever decide to
use my OWB holster without anything to cover the gun such as loose shirt tails or coat,
that I will definitely will be in dress clothes and dress shoes with slick every hair in place
haircut.
I think a tie would make a huge difference in obtaining the respectable or professional
look. I'm no saying respectability cannot be attained any other way but everyone
here has to know what I mean whether they agree 100 percent or not.

I must say that I have picked the above examples as extremes to make my point
and am not generally an alarmist myself. I'm just reflecting on some folks
I have seen open carry such as many detectives, owners of jewelry shops
and employees of gun stores etc. What they all have in common is a professional
demeanor.

I live in suburban Atlanta, GA and have begun to conceal carry just in the last month
and acknowledge that my ideas are evolving and I recognize that where it is impossible
to define grey lines that we must push for black lines that are extremely in our favor.

Let me put it another way, i dont think I have ever seen any kind of holdup or
robbery or mugging on TV where the bad guys got all dressed up first. I say TV because
I have never seen any of those things first hand in real life.

 

[Glockster20]

What you are describing is what the left and the politically correct call "profiling". I am not PC so I "profile" all the time. And most people do. LEO's are told not to profile but do it anyway. Profiling has actually saved lives on many occasions.

 

[Thunder69]

I know what you guys are saying...But I cant agree with this one. I like to O.C. sometimes and I also like to throw on a old pair of jeans and tee shirt, and if it's hot enough out side I just might have on the old skull cap (yes i'm balding) and my leather vest.
To some folks I might just look like the thug you are talking about, And I don't want to be harassed just because I'm dressed for comfort. Cuzz I'm still the same person when I'm slicked up and carrying concealed, Witch I am 80% of the time..So just not a good idea IMO.:no:

 

[ems_kws]

Out here in the rural west we have many "colorful?" people that carry openly at times. In my mind everyone that can legally own a gun should be able to legally carry that gun however they see fit. I've seen many different looks and styles that convey every imaginable message. I assume every person around me is armed and also I assume they are potentially dangerous. I to profile to a large extent (i.e some set off more warning bells then others) but I observe everyone so that I am not caught unawares by a seemingly innocent looking bad dude. The cop that stops a law abiding punk for doing something legally is in my mind infringing on that persons rights. The grungy dude has the same rights as I do and given the day it may actually be me. I don't think the punk should say anything to the cop except(because it is now the law. thanks to the case out of Humbolt County NV that went to the supreme court) identify himself. If I am stopped from going on my way, in my mind, it is the same as an arrest. Whether it is for 5sec or 50 years it is a cop putting you under his immediate control. Anything you say can and may be used against you. Without evidence of a crime it is unnecessary to stop civilians from continuing in their lawful constitutionally protected right. This sounds in some ways like I am against profiling and I am against many of the methods used in profiling. According to the feds our veterans fit the profile of a potential natural born terrorist. On the other hand I do recognize that most cops are just trying to do a descent job. I think a degree in the constitutional rights of citizens might benefit the people a lot more then a criminal justice degree. Just my two cents. I am still studying this issue along with constitutional rights so that I will eventually be able to convey my thoughts and opinions more clearly.







OBAMA- The best thing that has happened to the Republican party in a long time.:help: See common enemy doctrine

 

[utimmer43]

Yeah...um, not so much. I have no problem with L.E. observing a rough looking individual who is OCing. But in the name of consistency, it would be absolutely unacceptable for them to "harass" or even "check out" an OCer if there is no reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Simply looking like a thug is not reasonable suspicion, nor is OCing (in OC states, of course). Therefore, looking like a thug while OCing is not reasonable suspicion, and an LEO who would detain such a person would (and has) find themselves the subject of a civil liberties lawsuit.

Aside from that, you should also consider that it would be HIGHLY unlikely that a true thug would ever OC in the first place. Criminals don't like their unsuspecting victims or L.E. to know they are armed. Even if you wanted to make the argument that a thug might OC because he knows he cannot be harassed for it, this is equally unlikely because most criminals wouldn't even know that OC is legal in the first place.

All things considered, regardless of their appearance, an OCer is very unlikely to be a person of interest.

 

[6shootercarry]

On some days I would fail that "test" to give it a name. You apply a certain set of rules to manners, conduct, appearance and expect that the person who has the firearm on their hip will fit your expectation of responsible respectful citizen. That is why a person in uniform who has a gun on their hip does not incite that feeling of panic in the masses. They fit a certain visually acceptable norm. A person with ripped jeans a few tats and perhaps a leather jacket will cause the opposite reaction.

Get used to it as many people will not fit the ideal image of what you consider to be a respectful law abiding citizen.

I have had the pleasure of meeting and speaking to some individuals who would scare others just by their appearance.

Sunday at the local Wal-Mart (armed of course as Wally World is a place I consider a mandatory carry location) I had a good laugh with a guy some would label a biker. He was kind and we looked each other in the eyes and shook hands after the laugh and conversation.

Perhaps you should adjust your expectations and allow yourself to find the friend in a stranger you meet.

I also had the pleasure of meeting some of the guys who post on this site for the first time in DC on the 19th. I had no expectation of what the visual would be and it did not matter. The joy that came from putting names and faces together, priceless...

Peace...

 

[6shootercarry]

Yeah...um, not so much. I have no problem with L.E. observing a rough looking individual who is OCing. But in the name of consistency, it would be absolutely unacceptable for them to "harass" or even "check out" an OCer if there is no reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Simply looking like a thug is not reasonable suspicion, nor is OCing (in OC states, of course). Therefore, looking like a thug while OCing is not reasonable suspicion, and an LEO who would detain such a person would (and has) find themselves the subject of a civil liberties lawsuit.

Aside from that, you should also consider that it would be HIGHLY unlikely that a true thug would ever OC in the first place. Criminals don't like their unsuspecting victims or L.E. to know they are armed. Even if you wanted to make the argument that a thug might OC because he knows he cannot be harassed for it, this is equally unlikely because most criminals wouldn't even know that OC is legal in the first place.

All things considered, regardless of their appearance, an OCer is very unlikely to be a person of interest.

Yea what he said...:biggrin:

Peace...

 

[wolfhunter]

I worry as much about the guy in business casual as the "biker". I watch for BEHAVIOR, not clothing, although I will try to spot others around me who MAY be carrying (fanny pack, vest, untucked loose shirt, etc.)

 

[Blackhawk 93]

if I see this activity
my self I honestly hope that the police would check them out and harass them a little bit.

I find it disheartening that, as a group of people here who all wish that we be treated fairly, regardless of our appearance, that someone would wish this upon someone else just because they are openly carrying a weapon. As another poster so eloquently put it, "Criminals don't like their unsuspecting victims or L.E. to know they are armed. Even if you wanted to make the argument that a thug might OC because he knows he cannot be harassed for it, this is equally unlikely because most criminals wouldn't even know that OC is legal in the first place.".

 

[JJFlash]

To the OP, I have to concur about "stereotyping". You would probably look askance at me, since I resemble your "basic biker" most of the time. However, should you or your loved ones find yourselves in serious difficulty, when I was around, I might end up being the best friend you ever had. So, keep your situational awareness up, and listen to those internal "alarm bells" when they go off, but understand that all is not always what it seems.

 

[6shootercarry]

To the OP, I have to concur about "stereotyping". You would probably look askance at me, since I resemble your "basic biker" most of the time. However, should you or your loved ones find yourselves in serious difficulty, when I was around, I might end up being the best friend you ever had. So, keep your situational awareness up, and listen to those internal "alarm bells" when they go off, but understand that all is not always what it seems.

I agree with the alarm theory. The little hairs on the back of your neck have a vested interest in your well being so heed their warnings, but it should be the situation as JJ eluded to, not the way a guy looks in general.

I decided (with some prodding from an old friend) to attend my 20 year high school reunion 4 years back and most of the comments were "Wow you cleaned up" and "Never would have expected you to make 20 years."

It was all in the look I had going at the time. People will amaze you if you allow yourself to experience human interaction. A fine line exists between being paranoid and being cautious.


Peace...

 

[Jay]

I profile. I have since I came back from overseas in 1968. I will continue to profile.....by that, I mean anyone who doesn't meet MY definition of harmless, will be watched closer than other folks. I'm not going to call the law on them, or harass them in any way. I will not cause a scene, or draw any attention to the fact that I'm being a bit more observant of a particular individual. But, as I said, unless a person meets MY definition of harmless, I will pay closer attention to them.

Point is, I'll profile whether a person is carrying in any fashion, or if they appear to be unarmed altogether.

I've been carrying for 42 years ...... problem free ....... and I intend for things to remain that way.

 

[Aran]

I wear whatever I happen to feel like wearing that day, rarely shave, my hair always needs cut (I swear within a week of a haircut I need another... so I just don't bother often) and I walk with a limp after an hour or so on my feet (Hooray old injuries.)

What I have on doesn't change who I am.

 

[Confess]

I fail this 'test' too. 6'3" 460lbs. general biker attire. Association colors? check. Tattoos? check. Piercings? check.

I'm generally intimidating period. I'm huge. This is why I just conceal carry. Less hassle from people that are uncomfortable as it is around me.

Of course I am riddled with weight related health problems and ain't much threat to anyone that isn't a threat to me.

Profiling has and will save lives. Doesn't mean it is nice to the peole that get caught by it.

 

[hopnpop]

What you are describing is what the left and the politically correct call "profiling". I am not PC so I "profile" all the time. And most people do. LEO's are told not to profile but do it anyway. Profiling has actually saved lives on many occasions.

I quote D.L. Hughgley (sp?) - "Sometimes it ain't (racial) profiling...sometimes it's damn fine police work!"

I'm one of those who thinks that political correctness is one of the worst things to ever happen to America. It's BS. The Constitution protects free speech, not peoples' feelings. While I agree that profiling can be advantageous, I at the same time, recognize that profiling would be a real pain in the ass to many who are legitimate citizens. Right now I'm thinking of a girl I met at an open carry picnic last year. Her hair was both blonde and brown depending on what part of her head you were looking at, had a stud in her nostril, one tattoo I could see (sleeveless top), and semi-punkish clothing. I'll tell you it blew my mind when we got to talking. She was genuinely brilliant. She was exceedingly smart, very well-spoken, articulate.... and only months from getting her law degree. No one, upon looking at her, would assume she was much more than a fry cook. Pros and cons...

 

[GOV5]

I know what you guys are saying...But I cant agree with this one. I like to O.C. sometimes and I also like to throw on a old pair of jeans and tee shirt, and if it's hot enough out side I just might have on the old skull cap (yes i'm balding) and my leather vest.
To some folks I might just look like the thug you are talking about, And I don't want to be harassed just because I'm dressed for comfort. Cuzz I'm still the same person when I'm slicked up and carrying concealed, Witch I am 80% of the time..So just not a good idea IMO.:no:

Well, first of all, I like the post about getting dressed up to NOT look like a gangbanger when carrying open.

And I don't look at it as being harassed by the cops if I'm stopped and they ask questions. I look at it like they are trying to "protect and serve" the public at large. Al you have to do is show them a permit, if required in the state to open carry. If a permit is not required, you still have no worry if you aren't wanted. If you are "wanted", I'm glad they stopped you! LOL!

 

[preventec47]

You dont get a chance to "disagree" with the fact that I think a certain way. You only
get a chance to not like it or not think it is fair.

I am saying it is a fact that the probability of getting checked or "harrassed" by LEO
in the case of open carry is in direct proportion to the professionalism that you
portray by your dress and grooming and to a minor extent I guess your behavior
but I cannot imagine a guy in a suit and tie etc with a gangbanger strut.

Like it or not for most of the highly populated areas, you better clean yourself
up before you go out open carry or else you are jeopardizing all of our rights
to do so because of the greater liklihood of backlash and social unrest that
will be caused. In theory this is a democracy and regardless of the constitution
if enough people feel strongly enough against something, they can vote in
politicians that will find a say to prevent something.

All I am saying is to the open carriers in populated areas
"you have a higher obligation to spruce yourself up before going out."

Consider the worst case scenario regardless of OC carry laws on the books.

Imagine a slum neighborhood that has had high rates of gang activity
and shootings etc etc. Do you think the local populace/police are going
to stand for roaming groups ( gangs of punks) roaming the streets
carrying openly?
It very well could be that many of the punks have no record
that would prevent them from getting a permit if they live in an
area where permits are needed.

It may not be right or legal but we know the police can be creative
enough to cause you a great deal of inconvenience whenever they
want. The only time I have ever been arrested was with a charge
of "suspicion of loitering." Turns out there was no such law and
after 15 hours in jail they admitted mistake and let me go.
That was all because I was smart-mouthing a cop who was
harrassing someone else. They said move along and mind
your own business and not doing so got me 15 hours in jail.

 

[utimmer43]

You dont get a chance to "disagree" with the fact that I think a certain way. You only
get a chance to not like it or not think it is fair.

Obviously I wouldn't disagree with the fact that you think a certain way. But as for the scenario you present, not only do I not like it and think it's unfair, I believe it to be downright unconstitutional. Again, the focus being that the combination of two completely legal practices cannot be construed as reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. As such, any detainment or seizure would not be justified.

 

[JJFlash]

Bottom line is this is supposed to be a free country: you go where you want, dress the way you want, speak the way you want, carry your personal weapon the way you want, all constitutionally protected rights. If an LEO, in passing, wants to say "Hi, how ya doin?", as might any other friendly civilian, no problem. Even if LEO is using the exchange to assess who I might be, etc, I still have no problem provided I'm free to respond in kind or not at all, and continue on my merry way.

If however, he/she demands an extensive conversation, to see my papers, or search the bike, car, whatever, solely because of the way I'm dressed or how I carry my firearm, now we have a situation, called "probable cause". If I'm being detained, however briefly, then I am being deprived of my immediate freedom. We cannot accept this; IMO, this IS the "police state" we all rail against.

I could be persuaded that the probability of being stopped/harassed by LEO increases as you look "less professional". But I only care from the viewpoint that this harasssment is un-Constitutional; I don't care to run home and change into attire more "acceptable" to the state's police.

 

[utimmer43]

Bottom line is this is supposed to be a free country: you go where you want, dress the way you want, speak the way you want, carry your personal weapon the way you want, all constitutionally protected rights. If an LEO, in passing, wants to say "Hi, how ya doin?", as might any other friendly civilian, no problem. Even if LEO is using the exchange to assess who I might be, etc, I still have no problem provided I'm free to respond in kind or not at all, and continue on my merry way.

If however, he/she demands an extensive conversation, to see my papers, or search the bike, car, whatever, solely because of the way I'm dressed or how I carry my firearm, now we have a situation, called "probable cause". If I'm being detained, however briefly, then I am being deprived of my immediate freedom. We cannot accept this; IMO, this IS the "police state" we all rail against.

I could be persuaded that the probability of being stopped/harassed by LEO increases as you look "less professional". But I only care from the viewpoint that it this harasssment is un-Constitutional; I don't care to run home and change into attire more "acceptable" to the state's police.

Yeah, that too.:biggrin: