Oklahoma Open Carry. What are your thoughts?

[micks]

No. I sure wouldn't. I'm just not wired that way. Still, I keep my cards held close.

 

[Firefighterchen]

For sure. I like to have my four kings shown to the world so no one bothers to play cards with me.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[CharlesMorrison]

The element of surprise is maintained with CC. Second, if I were a bad guy, my first targets for neutralization would be those that I knew posed a threat.

Dear GOD!!!
Please!
Not this sh!t again!

Link Removed

 

[NavyLCDR]

The element of surprise is maintained with CC.

The mythical element of surprise that is thought to have the same affect on criminals as Kryptonite has upon Superman.

Second, if I were a bad guy, my first targets for neutralization would be those that I knew posed a threat to my criminal activity. Those that I know may interfere with my dirty deeds are those OC'ing.

The vast majority of criminals have enough common sense to not mess with the people known to have guns - unless those people also happen to be wearing uniforms and trying to arrest them. Most concealed carry only snobs who preach their element of surprise and shoot me first theories lack the common sense that the average criminal has.

 

[micks]

Noted

 

[Jones0430]

Open carry also has components to it that have nothing to do with an individual's right to carry a weapon. It also affects how others feel about a weapon being displayed openly by an unknown person, in a situation or locale that one does not reasonably expect to see a weapon.

In other words, it's not just about you.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Open carry also has components to it that have nothing to do with an individual's right to carry a weapon. It also affects how others feel about a weapon being displayed openly by an unknown person, in a situation or locale that one does not reasonably expect to see a weapon.

In other words, it's not just about you.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, trust me when I say this, it IS all about ME.

I have a protected Right to own and carry my gun.
Any time, any place I so deem desirable to do so..

I don't give a rats ass as to whether it offends you.
Tough sh!t. We live in a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy.
You or anyone else has zero vote when it comes to Rights.

You don't like my gun?
TOO BAD!
Link Removed
Grow a pair, will ya?!

 

[NavyLCDR]

Open carry also has components to it that have nothing to do with an individual's right to carry a weapon. It also affects how others feel about a weapon being displayed openly by an unknown person, in a situation or locale that one does not reasonably expect to see a weapon.

In other words, it's not just about you.

You are absolutely correct. About once a month I get a positive comment or thank you in response to the sight of my gun. On Veteran's Day I was eating lunch at Applebee's with my daughter. When I left, an older gentleman at a table I walked by stopped me and said, "Hey, buddy, I just wanted to thank you for carrying and for your service."

I get maybe 1 or 2 negative reactions per year and those are 90% from people who can't resist the urge to tell me they have a CPL, they carry their guns concealed, and so should I.

It's not just about me. Other people get to see a family man doing positive things, usually with his family, who just happens to care about them enough to carry a gun for their protection. I'm able to show them an image of a gun that is directly opposite of what the media and Hollywood is shoving in their faces on a daily basis.

 

[Jones0430]

So, hypothetically, how would you feel about this scenario.

You are in a store and have walked up to the checkout counter. A tall man is ther in front of you and is visually upset, making it known verbally, and demanding to see the manager.

An awkward situation in any case.

Add that he is legally openly carrying.

In all honesty, what would feel like? Safe? Concerned?

How do you suppose others in the area would feel?

Would the manager be warranted to call the police?

Would the man be considered to be openly intimidating the employees?

I don't have a clue how Oklahoma law treats that kind of situation, but I am interested.

It is an extreme case, to be certain.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So, hypothetically, how would you feel about this scenario.

You are in a store and have walked up to the checkout counter. A tall man is ther in front of you and is visually upset, making it known verbally, and demanding to see the manager.

An awkward situation in any case.

Add that he is legally openly carrying.

In all honesty, what would feel like? Safe? Concerned?

How do you suppose others in the area would feel?

Would the manager be warranted to call the police?

Would the man be considered to be openly intimidating the employees?

I don't have a clue how Oklahoma law treats that kind of situation, but I am interested.

It is an extreme case, to be certain.

People get all concerned over the guns they can see.... I would be more concerned about the gun that might be hidden, but people (indications pointing to you as well) suffer from the "Out of sight, out of mind" mentality. In your situation there is one difference between the guy who has a visible gun openly carried in a holster on his belt, and the same guy who has a gun concealed in a holster on his belt - about 2 mm of cloth over the gun. Therefore, it makes no sense that there should be any more concern about the openly carried gun in a holster on the belt (as long as it stays there) because there is just as much chance the guy is concealing one (legally or illegally) if you can't see it. In your scenario you are suggesting that the gun is worthy of more suspicion than the person.

In fact, the person who carries the gun out in the open for all to see is by far LESS likely to be planning to commit a criminal act with it because most criminals don't walk around with their guns out in the open in holsters on their belts for all to see - they tend to keep them hidden until they begin to commit their crimes - you know, "the element of surprise" and all that...

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I don't have a clue.....

You have made it redundantly clear that you truly don't have a clue.....

I advise that with your mindset, you not carry ANY weapon, of any kind.....

Don't want you "terrorizing" the local folk now... Ya hear?!

 

[ArmyCW4]

So, hypothetically, how would you feel about this scenario.

You are in a store and have walked up to the checkout counter. A tall man is ther in front of you and is visually upset, making it known verbally, and demanding to see the manager.

That will be the very first mistake and an irresponsable one I'll add. My first rule when armed is not to display the picture you just painted, regardless of the situation -- one must keep his/her bearing at all times and more so when displaying a fire arm. If not, get ready beacuse I can see it coming.

 

[Jones0430]

You have made it redundantly clear that you truly don't have a clue.....

I advise that with your mindset, you not carry ANY weapon, of any kind.....

Don't want you "terrorizing" the local folk now... Ya hear?!

I can tell that your typical extreme rightwing fuzzy thinking, closed-mind can't tolerate 1st amendment rights. This is a discussion. A discussion includes different viewpoints.

At no time did I intimate that I do not support 2nd amendment rights.

If YOU wish to restrict MY RIGHTS, you are welcome to try.

You will be met with the same hail of bullets you have, in many other forum threads, threatened those who disagree with you.

Either support the entire Constitution with attached Bill of Rights, or slink away like the neo-fascist you attempt to portray.

 

[Jones0430]

That will be the very first mistake and an irresponsable one I'll add. My first rule when armed is not to display the picture you just painted, regardless of the situation -- one must keep his/her bearing at all times and more so when displaying a fire arm. If not, get ready beacuse I can see it coming.

I agree whole-heartedly with you. The unfortunate part of this is that is the kind of scenario that is at the base of most arguments against open carry. The problem, as I see it is both education of the general population, as well as some method to prove that those who open carry are NOT a threat. With concealed handgun licenses, the holders are required to attend and pass a minimum amount of classroom time that includes the use of force and the laws surrounding it.

It seems to me that without that kind of minimum assurance the general public would not be accepting of a open carry if there were no assurances that those partaking of it were adequately trained and knowledgeable of their responsibilities.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I agree whole-heartedly with you. The unfortunate part of this is that is the kind of scenario that is at the base of most arguments against open carry. The problem, as I see it is both education of the general population, as well as some method to prove that those who open carry are NOT a threat. With concealed handgun licenses, the holders are required to attend and pass a minimum amount of classroom time that includes the use of force and the laws surrounding it.

It seems to me that without that kind of minimum assurance the general public would not be accepting of a open carry if there were no assurances that those partaking of it were adequately trained and knowledgeable of their responsibilities.

Link Removed

(I think you're looking for the Brady Handgun Reform forum and just stumbled into this one by mistake!)

 

[Jones0430]

I urge you to take a big glass yourself.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Link Removed

 

[NavyLCDR]

I agree whole-heartedly with you. The unfortunate part of this is that is the kind of scenario that is at the base of most arguments against open carry. The problem, as I see it is both education of the general population, as well as some method to prove that those who open carry are NOT a threat. With concealed handgun licenses, the holders are required to attend and pass a minimum amount of classroom time that includes the use of force and the laws surrounding it.

It seems to me that without that kind of minimum assurance the general public would not be accepting of a open carry if there were no assurances that those partaking of it were adequately trained and knowledgeable of their responsibilities.

We have no training required for our CPL in Washington State, a CPL is not required to open carry in Washington, and we have very little of the problems that you do. 9 out of 10 people who react to the sight of my gun do so positively and 90% of those that have a negative reaction are those with CPLs that are afraid of the sight of their own guns. So just keep your ideas about having to have training and assurances of not being a threat in your state - we are doing just fine without them here.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I can tell that your typical extreme rightwing fuzzy thinking, closed-mind can't tolerate 1st amendment rights. This is a discussion. A discussion includes different viewpoints.

At no time did I intimate that I do not support 2nd amendment rights.

If YOU wish to restrict MY RIGHTS, you are welcome to try.

You will be met with the same hail of bullets you have, in many other forum threads, threatened those who disagree with you.

Either support the entire Constitution with attached Bill of Rights, or slink away like the neo-fascist you attempt to portray.

I'm not seeing where he has restricted, attempted to, or even hinted at your 1A. I'm not sure how that even applies to a private forum where your 1A can be fully restricted by Luke.

Nor has he threatened your 2A right by advising you to not carry.

I think you need to work on your political parties...

I agree whole-heartedly with you. The unfortunate part of this is that is the kind of scenario that is at the base of most arguments against open carry. The problem, as I see it is both education of the general population, as well as some method to prove that those who open carry are NOT a threat. With concealed handgun licenses, the holders are required to attend and pass a minimum amount of classroom time that includes the use of force and the laws surrounding it.

It seems to me that without that kind of minimum assurance the general public would not be accepting of a open carry if there were no assurances that those partaking of it were adequately trained and knowledgeable of their responsibilities.

There is no classroom requirement in Washington for the permission slip. The best states for carry do not require proficiency either. The general population has no problems with carriers in these states.

Has anti gun groups sent their next batch of wannabe 2A supporters here?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

We have no training required for our CPL in Washington State, a CPL is not required to open carry in Washington, and we have very little of the problems that you do. 9 out of 10 people who react to the sight of my gun do so positively and 90% of those that have a negative reaction are those with CPLs that are afraid of the sight of their own guns. So just keep your ideas about having to have training and assurances of not being a threat in your state - we are doing just fine without them here.

Ditto for Alabama on all counts.