Open carry arguments.

[Firefighterchen]

Chen, where do you live? I live in the northern metro area of Minneapolis.

sent from a Samsung Galaxy S4

I spend half my time in eastern Washington. The other half I spend in one of these states : OR, ID, WY, MT, UT, NV, NM, CA, HI.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Before August of this year, that "NO" would get people here in AL arrested and convicted for disturbing the peace if a cop desired to arrest and charge them. It varies widely from state to state. Thanks to our new gun/carry laws though, a cop no longer has the authority to use the simple visibility of an otherwise legally carried weapon as probable cause for a contact or a DtP charge.

There are very few, if any, questions about firearms or the legalities involved with carrying them that can be answered with an unequivocal "Yes" or "No" throughout the nation.

Blues

That's a pretty broad and generalized statement. I would counter that by saying in my state, there are very few scenarios regarding firearms or the carrying of them that warrant or invite legal intervention.

 

[BluesStringer]

That's a pretty broad and generalized statement. I would counter that by saying in my state, there are very few scenarios regarding firearms or the carrying of them that warrant or invite legal intervention.

I was making a broad and generalized statement in reply to a broad and generalized statement that, before just a couple of months ago in my state, held the potential to get someone arrested if the statement I was replying to were to be accepted as fact anywhere except where the person who said it lives. This is the context for the broad and generalized statement that I made:

Or what if someone sees you OCing and calls the Police. Can they arrest you for "Disturbing the Peace z"

NO [was the broad and generalized statement I was replying to]

Not unless you are disturbing the peace Open carry does not = disturbing the peace. [was the part of the statement that prompted me to say that few questions can be answered yes or no *throughout the nation* - some states it's yes, and others are no, others fall somewhere in between.]

Since I know for a fact that a disturbing the peace charge can be brought for no other reason than open carrying in several states, as well as I know for a fact that almost any issue regarding firearms and/or the carrying of them will get no response from LE in some states while getting criminal charges in other states, I made the statement that, "There are very few, if any, questions about firearms or the legalities involved with carrying them that can be answered with an unequivocal "Yes" or "No" throughout the nation," and I stand by that broad and generalized statement. You "countering" it with a specific state where you are intimately familiar with the laws and standard practices of LE is no counter at all. It's known as a "non-sequitur."

Not sure why there would be anything wrong with a broad and generalized statement to begin with, as long as it is responsive to whatever was said that it was intended to reply to, and my statement most certainly was. Also not sure why a "counter" to such a statement is necessary, especially since that counter wasn't responsive to the exchange I was involved in. You got some axe to grind or what?

Blues

 

[SouthernBoy]

I was making a broad and generalized statement in reply to a broad and generalized statement that, before just a couple of months ago in my state, held the potential to get someone arrested if the statement I was replying to were to be accepted as fact anywhere except where the person who said it lives. This is the context for the broad and generalized statement that I made:



Since I know for a fact that a disturbing the peace charge can be brought for no other reason than open carrying in several states, as well as I know for a fact that almost any issue regarding firearms and/or the carrying of them will get no response from LE in some states while getting criminal charges in other states, I made the statement that, "There are very few, if any, questions about firearms or the legalities involved with carrying them that can be answered with an unequivocal "Yes" or "No" throughout the nation," and I stand by that broad and generalized statement. You "countering" it with a specific state where you are intimately familiar with the laws and standard practices of LE is no counter at all. It's known as a "non-sequitur."

Not sure why there would be anything wrong with a broad and generalized statement to begin with, as long as it is responsive to whatever was said that it was intended to reply to, and my statement most certainly was. Also not sure why a "counter" to such a statement is necessary, especially since that counter wasn't responsive to the exchange I was involved in. You got some axe to grind or what?

Blues

Nope.

 

[SirTapparuni]

Now my gf is having issues with me carrying when she is with. Because she is "Scared" ...I asked her what she is scared of. She doesn't like guns she said. I told her that get argument is invalid.

sent from a Samsung Galaxy S4

 

[Bikenut]

Now my gf is having issues with me carrying when she is with. Because she is "Scared" ...I asked her what she is scared of. She doesn't like guns she said. I told her that get argument is invalid.

sent from a Samsung Galaxy S4

This might be of interest to both you and her. May I suggest reading it with her and openly, politely, discussing with no attempt to sway her or convince her in any way. Be a source of knowledge for her without injecting any of your own personal opinions or arguments.

http://www.corneredcat.com/

Let the lady learn as much as possible and then... step out of the way and let her decide how she feels about guns and you carrying one to protect her.

Maybe she might even start thinking about carrying a gun herself... but may I suggest... do NOT push her... let her come to it on her own. Take her to the range and let her start with a non threatening no recoil .22... and let it go from there.

 

[AngusBangus]

The whole point of an open carry law is to prevent your arrest just because someone sees you. I'm in Mississippi, where we recently had a law passed to clarify that Open Carry is allowed. There has always been a segment who insisted it was so, but those of us who can't risk a legal altercation for no good reason chose not to try our luck. Here in MS, many sheriffs, chiefs, and the AG have come out in strong support of OC. So I personally prefer to OC, though CC is the only way some places.

OC or CC mitigates different risks. Someone who OCs and also maintains situational awareness would tend to deter a criminal paying attention more than someone who is CC'ing. If you are thinking rationally enough to select hard targets first, do you want to risk your life over an as-yet uncommited crime while staring at a guy staring back at you who has his 1911 on his hip? If the criminal is NOT paying attention, then OC vs CC doesn't matter and you've got slightly faster access to your weapon with OC (no interference from clothing). The flip-side is that CC keeps the sheeple (or a jack-booted thug-style LEO) from freaking out on you needlessly.

We should all recall that there was a time in this country when there was not really any such thing as CC. If you had a handgun, it was on your hip. If you didn't, you had your rifle/shotgun slung on your shoulder. OC is just another "old way" of doing things like growing a garden and having chickens that fell out of vogue as we bunched up in cities. I'm glad it's coming back.

 

[Firefighterchen]

The whole point of an open carry law is to prevent your arrest just because someone sees you. I'm in Mississippi, where we recently had a law passed to clarify that Open Carry is allowed. There has always been a segment who insisted it was so, but those of us who can't risk a legal altercation for no good reason chose not to try our luck. Here in MS, many sheriffs, chiefs, and the AG have come out in strong support of OC. So I personally prefer to OC, though CC is the only way some places.

OC or CC mitigates different risks. Someone who OCs and also maintains situational awareness would tend to deter a criminal paying attention more than someone who is CC'ing. If you are thinking rationally enough to select hard targets first, do you want to risk your life over an as-yet uncommited crime while staring at a guy staring back at you who has his 1911 on his hip? If the criminal is NOT paying attention, then OC vs CC doesn't matter and you've got slightly faster access to your weapon with OC (no interference from clothing). The flip-side is that CC keeps the sheeple (or a jack-booted thug-style LEO) from freaking out on you needlessly.

We should all recall that there was a time in this country when there was not really any such thing as CC. If you had a handgun, it was on your hip. If you didn't, you had your rifle/shotgun slung on your shoulder. OC is just another "old way" of doing things like growing a garden and having chickens that fell out of vogue as we bunched up in cities. I'm glad it's coming back.

Unfortunately that is what this country has come to...laws allowing us to do something without being arrested...did we ever have freedom? Or was it aborted like everything else precious in this country before it had a chance?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Rocketgeezer]

For about a year now I gave up trying to please everybody and there bother by CC, while I do OP while riding the motorcycle, I CC everywhere else, like I said about a year ago I started OP all the time it seems to be a bunch more comfortable, easyer access to weapon, and it can allow for funny things to happen, on the way home tonight I stopped at Arbys to pick up something for dinner, a little girl and her mother were at the counter, and the little girl saw the Glock on my hip, and she wasn't freaked out or anything but she said mommy that guy has a gun, and mama says so does your daddy, and the little girl says I know but daddys gun is little not a big one like that, and mama say your daddy wants a bigger one...............I swear I had all I could do not to bust out laughing my ass off, I didn't just stood there and ordered

 

[SouthernBoy]

In my state of Virginia, laws exist to inform you of things you cannot do, not things which you can do. Consequently, there are no laws in Virginia addressing open carry and since that is the case, open carry is the normal (standard, default) mode of carrying a sidearm. If you wish to carry concealed, you must obtain permission from our employees (public servants) in order to do this. No such permitting is needed to open carry your firearm. We have very few incidences of MWAG calls in my area... very few, indeed.

 

[Walker-Dog]

As a female, I don't want anyone walking up and overpowering me for my gun. The element of surprise is on my side.

 

[Kennydale]

In Texas they are considering open carry. I myself, would support it on a ballot. I myself for personal reasons would still carry CC.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[BluesStringer]

As a female, I don't want anyone walking up and overpowering me for my gun. The element of surprise is on my side.

As a woman, or a man for that matter, the element of surprise is on the side of the attacker if you let them get close enough to attack whether OC'ing or CC'ing. They will overpower you for your purse, your body or your life if you allow them to get close enough. You can rely on the myth that there's an "element of surprise" after the attack has begun and you have to figure out how to defend against being knocked out or beaten while trying to draw your weapon at the same time, or you can try to think it out logically that if a victimizer sees that a potential target has the means with which to defend themselves, they will likely pick another target rather than trying to overpower you for your weapon.

Regardless of whether or not you see the logic in that assessment, it doesn't matter how you carry if your situational awareness is such that you even can be overpowered after allowing the victimizer to get close enough to you to do it. In that case, it was you being surprised by them, not the other way around, and your chances of even getting to your weapon in time to save your own life have been reduced exponentially by that oversight.

Blues

 

[telpinaro]

As a woman, or a man for that matter, the element of surprise is on the side of the attacker if you let them get close enough to attack whether OC'ing or CC'ing. They will overpower you for your purse, your body or your life if you allow them to get close enough. You can rely on the myth that there's an "element of surprise" after the attack has begun and you have to figure out how to defend against being knocked out or beaten while trying to draw your weapon at the same time, or you can try to think it out logically that if a victimizer sees that a potential target has the means with which to defend themselves, they will likely pick another target rather than trying to overpower you for your weapon.

Regardless of whether or not you see the logic in that assessment, it doesn't matter how you carry if your situational awareness is such that you even can be overpowered after allowing the victimizer to get close enough to you to do it. In that case, it was you being surprised by them, not the other way around, and your chances of even getting to your weapon in time to save your own life have been reduced exponentially by that oversight.

Blues

Question... If CC'ing and you are surprised, what's the chance of getting to your weapon before they realize you have it?

Ever since I learned about the Tueller Drill and and saw a video demonstrating what can happen if an attacker is too close, I've been realizing a gun is not always going to be enough. I've got good situational awareness, and learned exactly what to look for after a very interesting class with Marc MacYoung. But... that no matter how good I am at staying aware, what if someone does get too close? I know the basics of handgun retention, and if I'm hanging on to the correct end I'm most likely keeping it.

I also want to start carrying appendix more frequently, even though it's actually more difficult to conceal and not very comfortable, as it seems that would be the easiest way to access it, especially if someone were to grab me from behind. Any ideas on that? And yes, I'm carrying correctly, I'm just bony, with not a lot of space between my ribs and hip bones.

I've got a place were I could take women's self defense from a jiu jitsu standpoint, which would be cool - the coach and I talk guns a lot (my son takes his classes), and Mr. MacYoung also teaches self defense classes near by. Unfortunately, I don't have the means to take those any time soon, not with a young kid around and nobody to watch him. I can't afford the classes and a babysitter.

 

[SouthernBoy]

As a woman, or a man for that matter, the element of surprise is on the side of the attacker if you let them get close enough to attack whether OC'ing or CC'ing. They will overpower you for your purse, your body or your life if you allow them to get close enough. You can rely on the myth that there's an "element of surprise" after the attack has begun and you have to figure out how to defend against being knocked out or beaten while trying to draw your weapon at the same time, or you can try to think it out logically that if a victimizer sees that a potential target has the means with which to defend themselves, they will likely pick another target rather than trying to overpower you for your weapon.

Regardless of whether or not you see the logic in that assessment, it doesn't matter how you carry if your situational awareness is such that you even can be overpowered after allowing the victimizer to get close enough to you to do it. In that case, it was you being surprised by them, not the other way around, and your chances of even getting to your weapon in time to save your own life have been reduced exponentially by that oversight.

Blues

Well stated and true. So many people who chose to CC like to use the reason that they want the element of surprise. The fact is if you are CC'ing properly, you look like any other potential victim to someone looking to target you. They are going to be of a mind to get in, do their deed, and get out as quickly as possible. Now this is not to say that those who do chose to CC are totally at a disadvantage. It is to say that since they look like anyone else, they must rely more heavily upon their situational awareness to alert them to something brewing. Even though I OC most of the time, there are times when I do CC because I deem it to be in my better interests for some valid reason I perceive. While I do my best to keep a good SA working all the time, when my gun is hidden I do it even more so.

 

[SR40c]

For me, Open Carry or Conceal Carry is merely a choice. Neither of which should have restriction. I carry concealed by choice and choice only. Local law enforcement here "strongly recommends" we do not open carry here even though it is perfectly legal to do so. That is what those who would "choose" to open carry would be up against.

 

[SouthernBoy]

For me, Open Carry or Conceal Carry is merely a choice. Neither of which should have restriction. I carry concealed by choice and choice only. Local law enforcement here "strongly recommends" we do not open carry here even though it is perfectly legal to do so. That is what those who would "choose" to open carry would be up against.

I'll finish your sentence for you;

That is what those who would "choose" to open carry would be up against in my state.

Please keep in mind that perhaps what may be likely to take place in Iowa is going to be far different from what one is probably going to encounter in, say, Arizona or Alaska or my state of Virginia.

 

[Bikenut]

For me, Open Carry or Conceal Carry is merely a choice. Neither of which should have restriction. I carry concealed by choice and choice only. Local law enforcement here "strongly recommends" we do not open carry here even though it is perfectly legal to do so. That is what those who would "choose" to open carry would be up against.

First of all I respect your decision as to what method of carry you prefer. I would like to comment on the part about local law enforcement "strongly recommends".......

As long as local law enforcement can intimidate people into not exercising their rights then their rights are being infringed upon by the local police using their authority to enforce their opinions/agenda. There is a cure for that...

And that is for folks to start legally open carrying and when harassed or arrested to sue the police depts. for illegal arrest and/or pursue U.S. Code Title 18 (commonly called "color of law") violations against not only the police dept. that has a policy of trying to control how people legally exercise the right to bear arms but also the individual officers who engage in intimidation in an effort to enforce that policy.

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

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,
-snip-

Folks can either allow themselves to be intimidated into giving up their rights... or they can stand up and "strongly recommend" their rights be respected.

Oh yes... remember that the police use dash cams and such to have a recording to prove you did something wrong so it would be wise for anyone who chooses to stand up and open carry to look into the recording laws in your State and, if legal, record the police while they are engaged in that "strongly recommending" intimidation thing so there is a recording to prove they violated that ... color of law... thing.

 

[SouthernBoy]

As long as local law enforcement can intimidate people into not exercising their rights then their rights are being infringed upon by the local police using their authority to enforce their opinions/agenda. There is a cure for that...

And that is for folks to start legally open carrying and when harassed or arrested to sue the police depts. for illegal arrest and/or pursue U.S. Code Title 18 (commonly called "color of law") violations against not only the police dept. that has a policy of trying to control how people legally exercise the right to bear arms but also the individual officers who engage in intimidation in an effort to enforce that policy.

Beautifully stated. Lots of props to you and I whole heatedly agree.

 

[SR40c]

I'll finish your sentence for you;

That is what those who would "choose" to open carry would be up against in my state.

Please keep in mind that perhaps what may be likely to take place in Iowa is going to be far different from what one is probably going to encounter in, say, Arizona or Alaska or my state of Virginia.

No, your correction is not entirely true. It's not even my state, it's just the county I live in. Pretty sure that the previous sentence in my post was clear on that, but thanks for the assist none the less.

For me, Open Carry or Conceal Carry is merely a choice. Neither of which should have restriction. I carry concealed by choice and choice only. Local law enforcement here "strongly recommends" we do not open carry here even though it is perfectly legal to do so. That is what those who would "choose" to open carry would be up against.

Again, it's all good.

First of all I respect your decision as to what method of carry you prefer. I would like to comment on the part about local law enforcement "strongly recommends".......

As long as local law enforcement can intimidate people into not exercising their rights then their rights are being infringed upon by the local police using their authority to enforce their opinions/agenda. There is a cure for that...


And that is for folks to start legally open carrying and when harassed or arrested to sue the police depts. for illegal arrest and/or pursue U.S. Code Title 18 (commonly called "color of law") violations against not only the police dept. that has a policy of trying to control how people legally exercise the right to bear arms but also the individual officers who engage in intimidation in an effort to enforce that policy.

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

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,
-snip-

Folks can either allow themselves to be intimidated into giving up their rights... or they can stand up and "strongly recommend" their rights be respected.

Oh yes... remember that the police use dash cams and such to have a recording to prove you did something wrong so it would be wise for anyone who chooses to stand up and open carry to look into the recording laws in your State and, if legal, record the police while they are engaged in that "strongly recommending" intimidation thing so there is a recording to prove they violated that ... color of law... thing.

For the record, I am not being intimidated. I "CHOOSE" to carry concealed.