open carry

[BluesStringer]

1: What state are you in.
2: I was talking about open carry in MA. where most police officers think open carry is crime.

I'm in Mississippi you blue-bellied Yankee scum! LOL Just kidding - I'm really in Alabama! LOL

On contact you will run the risk of being probed out at gunpoint.

Any cop probing me on contact without a warrant will be shot before he gets to the first knuckle!

3: why would you want to advertise you are carrying a firearm? I understand everyone should be free to exercise their rights but is there a reason you choose to open carry?

If you had stopped right there, I would've taken you seriously and answered your question politely. But....

Are you handicap, lack the motor skills to lift you shirt up before drawing or do you just want people to see your big gun? Must be one of those unless you open carry for a job. In which case your input is irrelevant. This discussion is mostly about open carry in plain cloths.

Actually, I am handicapped. Over the last two or three years I have developed what my physical therapist has referred to as "the worst case of plantar fasciitis" she's ever seen. If you have no idea what that is, hit yourself a library in one of those Ivy League Brainwashing and Propaganda Centers you got peppered all over the landscape up there and look it up. It has nothing to do with my hands, arms or ability to manipulate my shirt though, and my gun is not all that big, just a bit bigger than average I guess since I no longer have to buy compacts or sub-compacts and dress around them, but if you're at all serious about wanting to know why I OC after CC'ing for well over 30 years, I suggest you read this post from about six years ago here on this site, and please, meditate or pray or stick your head under a cold faucet before reading it, so as to open your mind to real logic and personalized experiential recounting before coming back to make truly vapid and juvenile p e n i s jokes.

4: I'm none of those. I'm just a law abiding America citizen whose chooses to exercise his 2nd amendment rights to protect my wife's, daughter's and my own life if needed.

As to the part I put in bold, umm, no you're not there you Yankee nob. You ask for, pay for and submit to the requirement to get permission from the state before they grant you the privilege of exercising a right that shall not be infringed, so your state isn't even "law abiding" when it comes to your rights, so how can you possibly be by complying with such tyrannical nonsense?

OC is the only way in most states to carry without having to ask permission. I not only exercise my real rights, I own them out in front of God Almighty and everybody else. The law is on my side, so if a cop tries to "probe" me (or prone me), they're going to cost the tax-payers of whatever jurisdiction I happen to be in within the state at the time several thousand dollars, if not tens of thousands of dollars, when I win the judgment for them violating my civil rights. And guess what smart-ass? I'll win that judgment whether anyone was impressed with the size of my gun or not!

I'm a realistic.

You're a lamb, cowering in fear of cops who would violate your rights under unquestioned or unchallenged orders from their tyrant-handlers, all of whom wake up every morning thinking of new and exciting ways to dishonor their oaths.

It's one thing to be deceived, but if you close your mind and refuse to see the truth in the above statement, you are nothing but self-deceived.

I don't feel the need to dress up and pretend to be a LEO or cowboy.

Yeah, sell your smart-ass quips somewhere else. The overwhelming number of regular membership here, even if they prefer CC over OC, ain't gonna be buying that trash-talk from someone who just showed up less than one full day ago.

Fudd cleanup on aisle 5!

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

Everyone thinks MA has these strict gun laws. As long as you've never been convicted of any crime, even in juvenile court you get you unrestricted class A large capacity LTC by taking one 4 hour class and a 30 minute meeting with your towns chief with fingerprints. LTC comes in the mail 4 weeks later. I can walk into any gun store and walk out with a firearm in less then 20 min. I can carry my loaded pistol openly or concealed almost everywhere even in a bars or any other establishment that serves alcohol. Carry is only restricted in federal buildings, court houses and school campus. If you are a law abiding citizen with no criminal record the only gun laws that are inconvenient are the "assault weapons" ban. With the current definition of "assault weapon" you could turn a Ruger 10/22 into an "assault weapon" by adding a bayonet lug and adjustable buttstock.

Are you saying MA doesn't have strict gun laws after that post?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[NavyLCDR]

1: What state are you in.
2: I was talking about open carry in MA. where most police officers think open carry is crime. On contact you will run the risk of being probed out at gunpoint.

I am in Washington State where we have worked hard to educate police officers that open carry is not a crime and have been very successful in doing so, especially after a couple of cities have had to pay settlements - especially Bellingham. Now it is very rare for a police officer in WA to hassle a person for open carrying, even in Seattle.

3: why would you want to advertise you are carrying a firearm? I understand everyone should be free to exercise their rights but is there a reason you choose to open carry? Are you handicap, lack the motor skills to lift you shirt up before drawing or do you just want people to see your big gun? Must be one of those unless you open carry for a job. In which case your input is irrelevant. This discussion is mostly about open carry in plain cloths.

That answer is simple and common sense. #1 Why would a criminal choose the person that they can see has the means to kill them readily available as a target when they can wait 5 minutes for the guy with the gun to leave, or go down the street one block and have the remaining 99% of the civilian population to choose from to target who is not known to have the means to kill them readily available? Criminals do not want to get shot and they do not want to get caught. Picking the visibly armed person as a target greatly increases the chances of both of those. And there are many ways that are a helluva lot easier to obtain a gun than to take it from the person open carrying it on their body.

Link Removed


#2 Open carry provides for a quicker draw with less movement required than concealed carry.

Gun Owner Saves Lives In The Richmond VA Golden Market Shooting

#3 If concealed carry is so much better than why do armored car companies drive visibly armored vehicles with their advertising plastered on the side and employ guards in uniforms openly carrying firearms? Why don't they use plain white delivery vans with discretely dressed employees carrying concealed guns and carrying money in unmarked duffel bags? The reason they don't is called deterrence. The armored car companies recognize the value of visible deterrence and so do I.

#4 Well over 99% of the general population shows no indication they even notice my gun. When someone does approach me about the gun (about once a month) it is almost exclusively a positive encounter. Either a thank you or cool that you are carrying, or genuine questions and the person goes away better educated. I have had 3 negative encounters with non-LEO persons (and 1 negative with a LEO) in about 10 years. 2 out of 3 of those negative encounters were with men who could not resist the urge to tell me they carry concealed and so should I. I firmly believe the 3rd negative encounter I had was also a concealed carry person, but can't confirm it for sure.

#5 Most of the time all the general population is going to see about guns is the bad stuff pushed on them by the news media and in the movies. I like to show people the image of a normal Joe - polite, respectful and professional who carries a gun in normal life for self-protection. Concealed carry does nothing to project a positive image of firearms. In fact it strengthens the concept that the gun is evil and must be hidden from sight.

4: I'm none of those. I'm just a law abiding America citizen whose chooses to exercise his 2nd amendment rights to protect my wife's, daughter's and my own life if needed. I'm a realistic. I don't feel the need to dress up and pretend to be a LEO or cowboy.

And I am exactly the same way. The only difference between your method of carry and my method of carry is a few milometers of cloth either over the gun, or tucked in behind the gun. I know there are no absolutes in life, only odds. You have no odds at all of your gun causing a criminal to think, "Well, crap, that guy's got a gun, it ain't worth it to attack him!" Odds are, where I live, if a criminal is looking for a target and sees my gun, that is exactly what that criminal will think. I have no idea how effective my open carry has been because I have never been personally attacked by a criminal, and not one criminal has come up to me and said, "Hey, I was going to jack you up - you're lucky I saw your gun and decided not too!"

And notice how I was able to respond to your questions without making insulting insinuations about your method of carry?

 

[MHas]

There was no insult about your method of carry. I stated 3 circumstances where open carry would be prefered. I also just stated a bunch of hypothetical situations where open carry could cause more problems then concealed carry. I loved your comment about the armored trucks. Can believe you didn't ask me why the Army doesn't conceal carry in battle if concealed carry is better. In case you missed the part where I mentioned open carry for a job that required it was another good reason to open carry.... It's good to know that in Washington state 99% of the population doesn't indicate they notice your firearm. I'm missing the relevance to my post about Open carry in Massachusetts. Maybe someone living in Florida has some input.

 

[MHas]

I bet you rednecks will really freak out when I say that everyone who wishes to carry a loaded firearm should be subject to a criminal background check, fingerprinted and have to take a required course on gun safety.

 

[BluesStringer]

I bet you rednecks will really freak out when I say that everyone who wishes to carry a loaded firearm should be subject to a criminal background check, fingerprinted and have to take a required course on gun safety.

No freak out down here. It's a well known fact that statists expect all issues of God-given rights to be doled out as privileges by the state. Wouldn't make any more sense to freak out about your statist nature than it would to freak out about the perverted and adulterous nature of Teddy and John F. Kennedy. Just don't expect any bigger or better of a welcome while promulgating your statist nature than you did while insulting the OC'ers on this board with p e n i s jokes.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I bet you rednecks will really freak out when I say that everyone who wishes to carry a loaded firearm should be subject to a criminal background check, fingerprinted and have to take a required course on gun safety.

How about if I respond reasonably without labeling or calling anyone names, even though you seem to lack such self control? I find it hard to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a redneck...but I can think of a lot of things worse than being a redneck.

1. What will background checks with fingerprints do? Is it going to keep criminals from carrying guns? No. What it will do is tie up law enforcement resources doing thousands, if not millions nationwide, background checks on law abiding citizens who are voluntarily complying with the law to begin with. So answer the question... What would you rather spend limited law enforcement resources on, background checks on those who volunteer for them, or be out there catching criminals who are going to carry their guns anyway?

2. What problem are you trying to fix by requiring training? Where is the blood running in the streets in states like Arizona and Washington and all the other states that don't require training?

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

I bet you rednecks will really freak out when I say that everyone who wishes to carry a loaded firearm should be subject to a criminal background check, fingerprinted and have to take a required course on gun safety.

No, but we do point at you and laugh, saying "Bless his heart." We're a polite people after all.

Do you think that anyone who wishes to vote (another right) should be subject to a background check, fingerprinted, and take a required course on American history and values?

 

[MHas]

No, but we do point at you and laugh, saying "Bless his heart." We're a polite people after all.

Do you think that anyone who wishes to vote (another right) should be subject to a background check, fingerprinted, and take a required course on American history and values?

No, even criminal can vote. You have to go back and read my post. I said people who want to carry loaded firearms in public, should have to pass a criminal background check. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own firearms. Our right to bare arms doesn't mean that just anyone without the proper education/training can walk around in public with loaded firearms. Let's also drop the term firearm and go back to pistols. Somewhere along the line people switched topics from pistols (what I have been talking about) to firearms in general.
I would also like to applaud everyone who responded to the redneck comment. You guys/girls are great. I only said that to get a rise but no one took the bait.

 

[MHas]

No, even criminal can vote. You have to go back and read my post. I said people who want to carry loaded firearms in public, should have to pass a criminal background check. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own firearms. Our right to bare arms doesn't mean that just anyone without the proper education/training can walk around in public with loaded firearms. Let's also drop the term firearm and go back to pistols. Somewhere along the line people switched topics from pistols (what I have been talking about) to firearms in general.
I would also like to applaud everyone who responded to the redneck comment. You guys/girls are great. I only said that to get a rise but no one took the bait.

I guess it was my wording too. I did say firearms not pistols. I just assumed since we were talking about pistols the topic would remain pistols. That's what happens when you assume.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Probably should not troll... Or admit to it .

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[MHas]

Everyone thinks my post are against open carry. They are not. I simply stated a few circumstances were open carry could cause more problems than concealed carry. I OC every time I go hunting or take my daughter tracking (except deer shotgun season when no firearms except shotguns are allowed on any public hunting grounds). That's every Saturday. We take advantage of the red squirrel and woodchuck open season. Gives us a chance to get out in the field and harvest even when all other species are out of season. Back to the open carry, my post were also based on open carry in MA. Anyone who responded referring to open carry in any other state besides MA. sorry you wasted your time. In response to firefighterchen, no I do not think MA. has strict gun laws. Compared to all other New England states, with exception of Vermont, MA. has the least restrictions on carrying a loaded pistol in public. I can walk into a Bar, drink a beer, play some pool all with my pistol OC. As long as you're under .08 BAC you are within the law. Most states around here you can't even walk into any place that serves alcohol with your pistol. When it comes to buying firearms, I feel MA. is not strict. With my class A LTC I can open carry or concealed carry a loaded pistol. Own/Buy any large capacity firearm. I can walk into any gun store, purchase and walk out with a new firearm in under 20 min. Pretty much as fast as you can fill out the FA-10. A lot of states have waiting periods for the purchase of a firearm. How about this instead of me listing all the ways MA. is not strict on firearms, you tell me a MA. law that you feel is unreasonable.

 

[NavyLCDR]

No, even criminal can vote. You have to go back and read my post. I said people who want to carry loaded firearms in public, should have to pass a criminal background check. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own firearms. Our right to bare arms doesn't mean that just anyone without the proper education/training can walk around in public with loaded firearms. Let's also drop the term firearm and go back to pistols. Somewhere along the line people switched topics from pistols (what I have been talking about) to firearms in general.
I would also like to applaud everyone who responded to the redneck comment. You guys/girls are great. I only said that to get a rise but no one took the bait.

First, I notice you did not answer my questions posed in post #47. In addition this post raises a few more questions:

1. "The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own firearms. Our right to bare arms doesn't mean that just anyone without the proper education/training can walk around in public with loaded firearms." - there is one word between "keep" and "bear" in the 2nd Amendment - and that word happens to be "and". So how can you claim that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to "keep" arms more than it protects the right to "bear" those arms?

2. "Let's also drop the term firearm and go back to pistols. Somewhere along the line people switched topics from pistols (what I have been talking about) to firearms in general." - Where are pistols, rifles, or shotguns specified in the 2nd Amendment? How can the 2nd Amendment apply more or less to pistols, rifles or shotguns when none of those items are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment - only the right to both keep and bear arms?

3. Why limit regulation to the 2nd Amendment? Why not regulate the 4th Amendment or 1st Amendment in the same way? Why not require a background check with fingerprints to be protected by the 4th Amendment? It would work like this - you submit an application with fingerprints to the government, along with $100 and if you pass the background check you get a 4th Amendment permit valid for 5 years. Then if a police officer stops you for a traffic infraction the officer says, "Step out of your vehicle, I am going to search it for evidence of illegal activities." Only if you can show the officer your 4th Amendment permit and the officer can verify that it is valid, then he must honor your refusal for the search. If you can't produce a valid 4th Amendment permit the officer can pull you out of the car and handcuff you while they conduct their search. Think about how much easier that would make police officers' jobs to catch criminals! Or the officer knocks on your door and says a neighbor reported that there were drug deals happening at your house and only with your 4th Amendment permit could you refuse the search?

Or how about a 1st Amendment permit requiring a person to pass a language and grammar exam in order to post on the internet so we wouldn't have to read posts by people who don't know the difference between bare and bear?

 

[MHas]

How about if I respond reasonably without labeling or calling anyone names, even though you seem to lack such self control? I find it hard to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a redneck...but I can think of a lot of things worse than being a redneck.

1. What will background checks with fingerprints do? Is it going to keep criminals from carrying guns? No. What it will do is tie up law enforcement resources doing thousands, if not millions nationwide, background checks on law abiding citizens who are voluntarily complying with the law to begin with. So answer the question... What would you rather spend limited law enforcement resources on, background checks on those who volunteer for them, or be out there catching criminals who are going to carry their guns anyway?

2. What problem are you trying to fix by requiring training? Where is the blood running in the streets in states like Arizona and Washington and all the other states that don't require training?

You are 100% right. Me being the blue bellied Yankee scum I am, I automatically assumed I was talking to a bunch of toothless trailer trash. I now know the error in my ways. Bless you for showing me the light. I bet most of you are hardworking Americans raising a family who have a love for firearms and carry on a daily basis like my wife and I. It started off just posting my opinion and experiences (what you do in a forum) some person got all pissy and didnt like my opinion and started talking S&$@. From that point I took it apon myself to be an a$& to anyone who responded to my post. For that I appogize. Now for a proper response: I do not think background checks and fingerprints will stop criminal from carrying guns. It will stop criminals from legally purchasing and possessing a firearm. If a criminal wants a gun bad enough they will find one. This is just a measure taken by my state to reduce the accessibility of firearms to criminals. The background checks are done by the FBI not your local PD. As far as wasting resources, I see no waste in making sure that people with criminal backgrounds and mental health issues can't legally purchase or posses large capacity firearms in my statee. I would also like to go back and say I was talking about the process of being able to legally carry a loaded pistol in public. The training/education is for anyone who wants to legally carry a loaded pistol in public. You learn to dos and don't of carrying in public. It teaches those who weren't raised around firearms basic firearm safety. The education also teaches you the gun laws in your state and what to do during an encounter with law enforcement while carrying a loaded pistol. Just like the hunter safety course you have to take to receive a hunting permit of the test you take to get your drivers license. As far as the states with blood running through the street, doesn't apply to anything I've been talking about. All my post are referring to MA.

 

[FTG-05]

This is fun! It's like watching fish getting shot in a barrel: The fish are outgunned and they don't even know it!

And just in case you can't figure out which side of the debate I'm on: I OC a .44 Mag and have for the last 3 1/2 years. The anti-OC and anti-2A types have no clue what they are talking about.

As usual.

 

[MHas]

If you give me a few days I'll research to stats on crimes committed with legal firearms vs illegal firearms. Other then that I have no knowledge on other non New England states gun laws. I also have no experience carrying outside of New England. I could not comment on those states gun policies or crime statistics.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I do not think background checks and fingerprints will stop criminal from carrying guns. It will stop criminals from legally purchasing and possessing a firearm. If a criminal wants a gun bad enough they will find one. This is just a measure taken by my state to reduce the accessibility of firearms to criminals.

How do background checks stop criminals from legally purchasing and possessing a firearm when it is already illegal for them to purchase or possess a firearm if they couldn't pass the background check to begin with? Sure, a background check will keep a criminal from walking into a gun store and buy one over the counter, they will have to get their firearm from someone else willing to sell it to them, but the question must be asked - is it worth expending law enforcement resources doing background checks on people who are going to volunteer for them instead of going after the people who sell the guns to the criminals illegally and going after the criminals who will buy guns illegally from different sources? Whether it is the FBI doing the checks or local police - it is still law enforcement resources being used to do them. The background check does not determine the legality of the purchaser to purchase or possess the firearm - their past criminal record does - the purchase and possession of the firearm would be illegal regardless of if a background check was done.

The background checks are done by the FBI not your local PD. As far as wasting resources, I see no waste in making sure that people with criminal backgrounds and mental health issues can't legally purchase or posses large capacity firearms in my statee. I would also like to go back and say I was talking about the process of being able to legally carry a loaded pistol in public.

The Massachusetts firearms license application requires proof of training to be submitted along with 2 personal references. The FBI does not do checks on training completion or personal references so how can you say that those portions of the background check and training verification are done by the FBI and do not tie up local police resources?

The training/education is for anyone who wants to legally carry a loaded pistol in public. You learn to dos and don't of carrying in public. It teaches those who weren't raised around firearms basic firearm safety. The education also teaches you the gun laws in your state and what to do during an encounter with law enforcement while carrying a loaded pistol. Just like the hunter safety course you have to take to receive a hunting permit of the test you take to get your drivers license. As far as the states with blood running through the street, doesn't apply to anything I've been talking about. All my post are referring to MA.

You completely avoided my question. What problem are you trying to fix by requiring training when no evidence of this problem exists in states that don't require training? Do you think the blood would run in the streets in Massachusetts where it hasn't in any other state that doesn't have the requirements that Massachusetts does?

 

[MHas]

What state are you in? Unless you have an hour to waste while under police investigation in response to a call for "a man with a gun" MA is not open carry friendly. You will also be forced to the ground at gunpoint upon police arrival LTC or not. I'd love to OC instead of constantly making sure my sidearm is not exposed. Not to mention the discomfort from inside wasteband holsters.

 

[MHas]

How do background checks stop criminals from legally purchasing and possessing a firearm when it is already illegal for them to purchase or possess a firearm if they couldn't pass the background check to begin with? Sure, a background check will keep a criminal from walking into a gun store and buy one over the counter, they will have to get their firearm from someone else willing to sell it to them, but the question must be asked - is it worth expending law enforcement resources doing background checks on people who are going to volunteer for them instead of going after the people who sell the guns to the criminals illegally and going after the criminals who will buy guns illegally from different sources? Whether it is the FBI doing the checks or local police - it is still law enforcement resources being used to do them. The background check does not determine the legality of the purchaser to purchase or possess the firearm - their past criminal record does - the purchase and possession of the firearm would be illegal regardless of if a background check was done.



The Massachusetts firearms license application requires proof of training to be submitted along with 2 personal references. The FBI does not do checks on training completion or personal references so how can you say that those portions of the background check and training verification are done by the FBI and do not tie up local police resources?



You completely avoided my question. What problem are you trying to fix by requiring training when no evidence of this problem exists in states that don't require training?

I'm not trying to fix anything. These policies are already implemented in the MA. LTC process. I was just saying I think our policies have a positive effect.
I wish I had knowledge or experience in other states. I can't compare 1 state to another without knowing any facts. Like I said I'll research it and try and find some numbers comparing AZ to MA in crimes committed with legally owned pistols vs crimes committed with illegally owned pistols

 

[Firefighterchen]

Washington. This is how hard it is for me to open carry....

I wake up.

I put my clothes on.

I put my gun on.

I'm done.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app