Open vs Concealed Carry

[solis93]

There is a lot of controversy regarding this issue. My opinion is based on some historical events which people on both sides of the argument have all but forgotten.

The term “right to bear arms” is much older than our Constitution and dates to a time when only nobles and their sycophants were allowed that right by some king. It was a sort of permit which allowed nobles to create small armies to protect their property - this right was often shown off by that family's arms in some heraldic college. I look at this device in the same way I see CCW permits.

On one hand, this is why I am opposed to the entire idea of concealed weapons permits. What many historians miss on the argument of the Second Amendment is that our Founding Fathers likely rebelled against the idea that only the rich nobles and other privileged English misfits should be the only ones to have this right. Their idea was that *everyone* should be able to defend themselves against harm or tyranny regardless of titles, status or class.

So any sort of permit requirement is, in my opinion not only alien to the Forefather's intentions, but an insult to the idea that free men deserve the right to protect themselves. Further, the Constitution says NOTHING about permits, and I don't think they would have required permits to carry them. Having said that, and I may be old-fashioned, I like the idea of bad guys not being able to carry weapons. On the other hand, if carrying a weapon out in the open means that I am stopped by every police officer I encounter so that they can assure themselves I am not a criminal carrying a gun, I would just assume having the permit and not let ANYONE know I am armed.

 

[cougar98332]

all very interesting points. i myself carry both concealed and openly, depending on circumstances. it has to do more with hassle and offending people, unfortunately. much like the precarious standing of open free speech of religion, sadly. in my various research over the years, have come to the conclusion that the spirit of the laws written by the founding fathers, based on their actions and words, believed that all people, at all times, should be allowed to carry arms, no restrictions of any type, so that the nation, states, towns selfs be at all times protected. and at that time there were little/no concealable firearms, pistols were big and heavy, carbines and rifles even more so. i believe that the ideas of the 1st amendment are very similar, that the government can NOT tell people what they can and can not say, believe, say they believe, etc. they would say merry christmas while openly wearing a pistol, to illustrate my point. good discussion starter.

 

[FTG-05]

There is a lot of controversy regarding this issue. My opinion is based on some historical events which people on both sides of the argument have all but forgotten.

The term “right to bear arms” is much older than our Constitution and dates to a time when only nobles and their sycophants were allowed that right by some king. It was a sort of permit which allowed nobles to create small armies to protect their property - this right was often shown off by that family's arms in some heraldic college. I look at this device in the same way I see CCW permits.

On one hand, this is why I am opposed to the entire idea of concealed weapons permits. What many historians miss on the argument of the Second Amendment is that our Founding Fathers likely rebelled against the idea that only the rich nobles and other privileged English misfits should be the only ones to have this right. Their idea was that *everyone* should be able to defend themselves against harm or tyranny regardless of titles, status or class.

So any sort of permit requirement is, in my opinion not only alien to the Forefather's intentions, but an insult to the idea that free men deserve the right to protect themselves. Further, the Constitution says NOTHING about permits, and I don't think they would have required permits to carry them. Having said that, and I may be old-fashioned, I like the idea of bad guys not being able to carry weapons. On the other hand, if carrying a weapon out in the open means that I am stopped by every police officer I encounter so that they can assure themselves I am not a criminal carrying a gun, I would just assume having the permit and not let ANYONE know I am armed.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the only way to prevent this in the future is to, you guessed it, open carry. Eventually, they'll get tired of the wasted police time and lawsuits. Kudos to those willing to risk getting stopped so that it eventually becomes normal.

 

[eagleeyes]

just depends on the situation as there is good reason to carry open at times and good reasons to carry concealed at times
personally i'd rather keep mine concealed and i have good reasons why

 

[old skool]

I carry everyday concealed thinking if I ever walked into a bad situation such as a store or gas station hold up I'd be the #1 target before I ever had a chance to react if my weapon was exposed.

 

[Firefighterchen]

There is a lot of controversy regarding this issue. My opinion is based on some historical events which people on both sides of the argument have all but forgotten.

The term “right to bear arms” is much older than our Constitution and dates to a time when only nobles and their sycophants were allowed that right by some king. It was a sort of permit which allowed nobles to create small armies to protect their property - this right was often shown off by that family's arms in some heraldic college. I look at this device in the same way I see CCW permits.

On one hand, this is why I am opposed to the entire idea of concealed weapons permits. What many historians miss on the argument of the Second Amendment is that our Founding Fathers likely rebelled against the idea that only the rich nobles and other privileged English misfits should be the only ones to have this right. Their idea was that *everyone* should be able to defend themselves against harm or tyranny regardless of titles, status or class.

So any sort of permit requirement is, in my opinion not only alien to the Forefather's intentions, but an insult to the idea that free men deserve the right to protect themselves. Further, the Constitution says NOTHING about permits, and I don't think they would have required permits to carry them. Having said that, and I may be old-fashioned, I like the idea of bad guys not being able to carry weapons. On the other hand, if carrying a weapon out in the open means that I am stopped by every police officer I encounter so that they can assure themselves I am not a criminal carrying a gun, I would just assume having the permit and not let ANYONE know I am armed.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the only way to prevent this in the future is to, you guessed it, open carry. Eventually, they'll get tired of the wasted police time and lawsuits. Kudos to those willing to risk getting stopped so that it eventually becomes normal.

+1 that is how the police were retrained here, they detained the wrong guy who knew his rights.

I carry everyday concealed thinking if I ever walked into a bad situation such as a store or gas station hold up I'd be the #1 target before I ever had a chance to react if my weapon was exposed.

I'd like to think I would have enough situational awareness to prevent myself from walking into a robbery all ready happening. I try to look into buildings before I enter them, including my home, it only takes a few seconds. I do this carrying either way.

I do carry openly 95%+ of the time thinking all the places I am at, that are not currently being robbed, will not be robbed because there would be a much easier store to rob two blocks down the road.

 

[Kevin 80]

I open carry 90% of the time and have never once been stopped to see if I was legal . The other 10% I have good reasoning behind cc , the most comfortable holster I found so far is my right front pocket but that is concidered oc to me because its hard to hide a 40cal. in ur pocket

 

[wolf_fire]

I will never get why this is even a debate and why gun owners can become so vehemently opposed to one another on this topic.

Carry the way you want to carry.

However, I totally agree with the OP that permits and licenses are a complete and utter violation of the words "... shall not be infringed." It's odd how the only Amendment that says we shall not infringe upon it, has been infringed upon quite a lot.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I must agree with oldskool. I don't carry open. Your situational awareness will not help you when someone pulls a weapon while you are in a burger king. Granted, it will keep you out of trouble most of the time, but not all of the time. I do not want to be the first one to get shot, because I am the biggest threat to the BG. I think OC is fine in the country, but not where I live. I could care less if it upsets anyone, I just don't want to give away my advantage of the BG not knowing who is and isn't armed.

 

[XfNujNplhaib]

I'd rather carry concealed because I don't want to get stop and waste time with LEOs.