opinions on open carry

[Treo]

Wow. You guys really missed the point. I guess you just read what you want to read, interpret things literally, and ignore the subtle context. A gross overestimation on my point.

I suspect that our "interpretation" is the product of our military ( Well I was in the military NavyLCDR is a:biggrin: seascout :biggrin: but I'm sure you get my point) background. Warships open fire because they are ordered to do so on in self defense. Pirates pick the weakest target they can find.

Haven't heard of too many pirates attacking the USN have you?

 

[B2Tall]

I suspect that our "interpretation" is the product of our military ( Well I was in the military NavyLCDR is a:biggrin: seascout :biggrin: but I'm sure you get my point) background. Warships open fire because they are ordered to do so on in self defense. Pirates pick the weakest target they can find.

Haven't heard of too many pirates attacking the USN have you?

Treo, look up the definition of "metaphor".

The warships were simply representative of what we're talking about here - people who carry guns. Geez....did I really have to explain that to you?? I was careful to point out that the warships in my example were equally matched (i.e. like 2 people with pistols)and not something like somali pirates in an open boat vs an armed warship (which would be like somebody with a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun attacking somebody who's armed with an assault rifle).

Honestly, I didn't really think I was going to have to dumb-down my posts in this case.

 

[B2Tall]

We make one request. Show us in real life where the open carrier has been shot first in a robbery. That's all. One simple little request. It should be easy to fulfill.

Well O-4, if there are people who're stupid/desperate/crazy/ballsy enough to draw on LEOs then I'm sure they'd have no qualms about drawing on you or any other OCer. And that's not even counting the people who rob places with armed guards. They'd count as OCers.

Here's another:

Link Removed

MILWAUKEE - A Milwaukee man found out the hard way that carrying a gun for protection doesn't always keep you safe. In fact, it may have made him a target.

The 34-year-old man legally owned a handgun and carried it out in the open in his holster for protection.

Neighbors say they knew he was always armed.

"It was kind of scary to just see him walking around all the time with that gun kind of just out in the open," said Shambria Mayham Autman. She lives near Teutonia and Good Hope and said they called him "The guy with the gun."

But it wasn't scary for at least one person who robbed "The guy with the gun" at gunpoint.

"I think he was trying to scare people off like, 'Yeah, don't mess with me,' kind of attitude, but it didn't work," Mayham Autman explained.

The president of Wisconsin Carry, Nik Clark, says 100's of thousands of people open carry and he's never heard of anything like this.

"So it really is a very unusual situation, very unique," Clark said.

The victim didn't want to go on camera but said he carried the gun because he had been jumped and held up at knife point in the past. He believes, in his case, open carry made him a target and he will no longer do it.

He said his case proves gun owners should have the right to carry concealed weapons.

Clark agrees. "By and large it is a significant deterrent, open carry is, but I think it really does make the point that Wisconsin should have concealed carry along with open carry so that people who live in a very high crime neighborhood where criminals aren't deterred by firearms would have the ability to conceal carry to protect themselves. The two really work hand in hand," Clark said.

 

[NavyLCDR]

B2Tall,

A wise man once said, "It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Seriously, do you enjoy digging an intellectual grave for yourself and jumping in it with both feet? Really?

I asked this:

We make one request. Show us in real life where the open carrier has been shot first in a robbery. That's all. One simple little request. It should be easy to fulfill.

And this is the how you answer?

Google "police officer murdered" and you'll find plenty of instances of OCers (i.e. the police officer) who're killed by assailants even though they had pistols on their hips.

Really? Cops in uniform getting shot by criminals?!? Seriously? You REALLY expect ANYONE to buy that argument that Joe Public will be shot first in a robbery because of his gun because cops are shot at while wearing their uniform and badge?!?!!! Come on.

Then you reply with this:

Well O-4, if there are people who're stupid/desperate/crazy/ballsy enough to draw on LEOs then I'm sure they'd have no qualms about drawing on you or any other OCer. And that's not even counting the people who rob places with armed guards. They'd count as OCers.

Here's another:

Link Removed

WOW! I must admit, you really did your homework finding that one. I wonder where you got that link from.... let's see.... could it be because I posted that link FIRST, IN THIS VERY THREAD! To wit:

Let me put it to you, B2Tall in terms that might help a little more. Show us examples in real life where the open carrier was targeted first.
...
and then there's this one, with no indication whatsoever that his gun had anything at all to do with the armed robbery since armed robbery is rampant in that area anyway...

Link Removed

Also, notice the open carrier was not shot first in the robbery was he... NOPE! He wasn't shot at all, was he. He was the victim of an armed robbery. And, what exactly would have been different if he was carrying concealed? The criminal ALREADY has the upper hand. He's already got his gun in his hand and aimed at you. So, Mr. Concealed Carrier, what are you going to do? Unleash your Ninja skills and draw your gun out of concealment and shoot the bad gun who ALREADY has his gun in hand and aimed at you?!? Do you REALLY think that ANYTHING in the scenario that I PROVIDED to you would be different if the guy was concealed carrying?

You've really outdone yourself this time, B2Tall.

 

[B2Tall]

Dear LCDR

There are far fewer people out there that are impressed by the gun on your hip than you think. In spite of your signature line, there are a lot of people out there that don't give a rat's ass that you (or anyone else) is OCing. You think the street thug that has grown up dodging bullets in impressed with an OCer?? Look at the number of people who rob places with armed, OCing guards.......armored cars, banks, jewelry stores, pawn shops, casinos, check cashing stores, etc. etc. Do you really think that those BGs are going to turn tail and run just because they see you and your pistol?? I don't think they'll be needing a tissue as you seem to imply. Heck, even the pro-carry guy in the article I posted acknowledged that there are going to be people who aren't deterred by the sight of somebody packing.

I've said repeatedly in this thread that OCing may deter some crime but that it's not for me. You, with your self-appointed infallibility (and this is hardly the first thread you've done this in) refuse to admit that there are times and places where CCing might be a better option. You're just always right and anyone who has a different view is wrong. I'd say that you're the one who's outdone himself but this really just par for the course for you.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Dear LCDR

There are far fewer people out there that are impressed by the gun on your hip than you think. In spite of your signature line, there are a lot of people out there that don't give a rat's ass that you (or anyone else) is OCing.

I believe that about 95% of the general population doesn't give a rat's ass that I am OCing. It's not me that is concerned about causing the panic in the general population. It is the concealed carry only crowd, your followers, that keep saying I'm going to scare the public. And 4% of the remainder who do give a rat's ass about me open carrying are the people that come up to me and make positive comments.

You think the street thug that has grown up dodging bullets in impressed with an OCer?? Look at the number of people who rob places with armed, OCing guards.......armored cars, banks, jewelry stores, pawn shops, casinos, check cashing stores, etc. etc. Do you really think that those BGs are going to turn tail and run just because they see you and your pistol?? I don't think they'll be needing a tissue as you seem to imply. Heck, even the pro-carry guy in the article I posted acknowledged that there are going to be people who aren't deterred by the sight of somebody packing.

And you still fail to offer proof they are going to shoot me first. So what difference does it make if my gun is concealed or not?

I've said repeatedly in this thread that OCing may deter some crime but that it's not for me. You, with your self-appointed infallibility (and this is hardly the first thread you've done this in) refuse to admit that there are times and places where CCing might be a better option. You're just always right and anyone who has a different view is wrong. I'd say that you're the one who's outdone himself but this really just par for the course for you.

Once again you are spouting forth theory that is only true in your mind and has no basis in reality, in fact has evidence against you in reality. You open your mouth only to firmly and deeply implant your foot into it. Seriously, do you post such stupid stuff to intentionally bring discredit upon yourself? I think the repetition with which you invite us to show your errors must be intentional. Here's the proof:

NavyLCDR - I've been hearing this "printing or open carry makes you a target" theory for a while too. I agree that in most cases it is BS, and I'm glad you posted some numbers.

However, I want to add in my $0.02 worth on this, to point out some specific instances when open carry would be a bad thing:

1) If you are in a bank that is about to be robbed by "professional" bank robbers (ie ones who have done so before, work as a team, have planned it out, etc) ... these are the kinds of criminals who would not be deterred by a citizen with a firearm. And in this case - you're targeted for being shot or being disarmed, right along with the bank security guard.

2) In certain rough urban areas, gang members and "wanna-bes" will ABSOLUTELY target you if they know you have a firearm. Sometimes it's because they want the firearm, sometimes it's because you're a "big man showing disrespect on their turf." I know a guy in Philadelphia who wants to open carry to assert his right (in light of legal open carriers being hassled recently by police) - but he absolutely will not do so, precisely because he lives in a bad area and knows what will result.

Just some food for thought. I really can see both sides of this particular argument.

I think that the chances of that happening are pretty small. To me, that would be like not walking on the sidewalk next to a multi-story building for fear of a piano or flower pot falling on one's head. Also, in the heat and confusion of that situation, partial concealment of the gun by tightly pressing my elbow against it, I think, would keep the gun from being noticed. I think it would be much more likely for the bad guys to notice the movement of a person attempting to draw a gun from concealment.

I think there are much easier ways for gangs to obtain firearms than to attack the armed person just to gain it. HOWEVER, I do believe the ego affect is a major consideration (and it really doesn't matter what the motivation behind the attack is.) I personally would not open carry in an area I knew to be a high gang area for that exact reason...actually, I would not be in that area to begin with unless I absolutely had to be. Situational awareness and avoiding a possible criminal situation is still the best defense against a criminal action.

Agreed - not likely that any of us are going to be present during a professional bank heist. I'm mostly just making discussion here. But for the sake of that discussion - if we're assuming "smart and ruthless" bank robbers vs "coward if he didn't have a gun" muggers - then I have to disagree that they probably wouldn't notice. And YES it's possible that the BG would notice a CCW trying to draw. But if it's concealed..you can make the choice to NOT draw...or to draw when you feel it's least likely to be noticed. You don't have those options if you've been shot to death by the robber after he saw your weapon.

Well put. And I do my best to avoid those sorts of areas as well, but sometimes easier said than done. Where I live is a really nice area...but drive just a few miles west and you're smack in the middle of a major ghetto...then a few miles more and it's nice again. (Come to think of it...this is actually true for several directions in which I could travel.) Anyway - I certainly wouldn't want my car to break down in some of these areas. But if it did, and in such a way that I had to walk for help...I'd definitely want hardware...but concealed instead of visible.

All a moot point since here in Massachusetts I would be arrested and charged with brandishing if I chose to open carry. Someone really needs to put that law to the test...but I don't have the money for the legal bills, nor the time to spend away from my son if I should lose the case.

Also, 99% of the time all I have to do to conceal my gun is flip my shirt over it. So if I do inadvertently end up in an area of concern it's not like, "OMG, what am I going to do with this gun?!?"

This is easier than catching fish in a barrel with a stick of dynamite.

 

[SGB]

This is easier than catching fish in a barrel with a stick of dynamite.

 

[Punch]

Why is it that you feel the need to make such immature and ridiculous statements about fellow pro-gun Americans? Seriously, you lose 100% credibility when you make such childless and useless statements. If you want to portray yourself as a man, than speak like a man instead of an imbecile.

Simple. The OP asked our OPINION, and I gave mine. I have never personally known an urban OCer where this was not the case. Of course, I have not personally met anyone on this forum, so I cannot speak for them. Nearly every one of them was trying to make a point, and that point was that they did not know what the Constitution actually says. Particularly the part that says the Supreme Court is the final word on what the Constitution means, not each individual OCer. These people are no friend to the 2nd Amendment, particularly in urban areas where people are already sick and tired of "gun violence" and consider a person with a gun on his hip as just another lunatic thug. Since these people (unfortunately) have the right to vote, I prefer not to p*** off enough of them so that they undo what true friends of the 2nd Amendment have worked so hard recently to get done.

Most of the arguments that I have heard for OC are pretty much utter BS. I have the privilege to work with, and have been trained by, professionals who carry a gun every day. Every one to a man carries his concealed unless he is on uniformed duty. Most can draw, fire and hit someone before that person can react and pull the trigger. To those that say they can draw from OC faster than CC, I will have to concede that point, if they do not know what they are doing, or are forced due to circumstance to "deep conceal" their weapon in a rig that was made to conceal and not actually be able to be used (which includes about anything that requires you to pull a garment up to expose the weapon before you draw).

Perhaps somewhere during my travels I will meet an urban OCer that is both professional and sane. I am specifically leaving out rural OCers because that is a different breed altogether, and one that I have never had any bad dealings with, although the possibility exists that one day I will run into the wrong one of them, too.

 

[NavyLCDR]

These people are no friend to the 2nd Amendment, particularly in urban areas where people are already sick and tired of "gun violence" and consider a person with a gun on his hip as just another lunatic thug.

And by the comments that you make regarding people who carry guns for self protection in the manner they feel is most efficient for them.... you are no friend of the 2nd Amendment either. The Brady Bunch and all the other anti-gun groups say the same things about anyone who carries a firearm, openly or concealed, permitted or not as you say about open carriers.

Have a nice day.

 

[Axeanda45]

Simple. The OP asked our OPINION, and I gave mine. I have never personally known an urban OCer where this was not the case. Of course, I have not personally met anyone on this forum, so I cannot speak for them. Nearly every one of them was trying to make a point, and that point was that they did not know what the Constitution actually says. Particularly the part that says the Supreme Court is the final word on what the Constitution means, not each individual OCer.

Uhmmmm, could you PLEASE show us where that part is?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Uhmmmm, could you PLEASE show us where that part is?

The same place where open carriers are shot first in robberies.... don't you know ANYTHING?!?

 

[Grognard Gunny]

IIRC, The Supremes became arbitrator of the Constitution as a result of an early SC case. It was in the early 1800. (Those wishing for further enlightenment can look it up.)

Thus, while it is nowhere so stated in the Constitution that the Supremes have "review authority" on Constitutionality, the idea was, probably, a logical extention of "checks and balances". Now, as to whether or not this is a "good" power to have had them "assume".... tough call.

GG

 

[Nightmare45]

Reaction never beats action, but if the BG thinks you my be harmless then maybe he has to react.

 

[B2Tall]

IIRC, The Supremes became arbitrator of the Constitution as a result of an early SC case. It was in the early 1800. (Those wishing for further enlightenment can look it up.)

Thus, while it is nowhere so stated in the Constitution that the Supremes have "review authority" on Constitutionality, the idea was, probably, a logical extention of "checks and balances". Now, as to whether or not this is a "good" power to have had them "assume".... tough call.

GG

Article III, section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution....

As with many parts of The Constitution, it's rather flexible in its interpretation.

 

[Punch]

Article III, section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution....

As with many parts of The Constitution, it's rather flexible in its interpretation.

The wording seems pretty clear to me, but then again, so does the Second Amendment. In both cases, I am predisposed to believe the words mean what I think they mean. This is why it is so important to have laws written with precision, leaving no room for interpretation. We had to rewrite our CHP law here in Nebraska because, for those predisposed to believe that way, the law did not specifically state that ALL local ordinances, like handgun registration, were preempted by the CHP law. And, since the State Supreme Court had already ruled that "reasonable" limitations were allowed to the right to own and carry weapons, Omaha kept enforcing its registration ordinance. We got that fixed last year with wording that left no room for doubt as to the intent and meaning of the law, and we now have FULL preemption of all local ordinances for those that possess a CHP. It is important to communicate with your legislators as they write bills affecting your rights. Even those most kindly disposed toward your way of thinking cannot think of everything, and they sometimes need help with things that they cannot foresee themselves.

 

[Punch]

The same place where open carriers are shot first in robberies.... don't you know ANYTHING?!?

Must know more than you think. Article III says nothing about open carriers being shot first. It does establish a judiciary and discuss the responsibilities and limits of the judiciary. When Congress or the People do not like the decisions of the judiciary, they can over-rule the judiciary by passing more clear Amendments and laws. The Eleventh Amendment is an example of this. B2Tall quotes the specific part of Article III that I had in mind. Gunny is correct that the term "review authority" is not used in the Constitution, and such authority was in dispute in the early days of our Republic. However, it has pretty much been a given for better than 200 years.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You fail to take into account that the Constitution may be amended. Therefore the US Supreme Court does not have the final say regarding what the Constitution states.

In addition, the Declaration of Independence states that the citizen has the duty to overthrow a government which becomes grievously oppressive.

 

[X1911]

I think open carry is great in just about all aspects people talk about. The aspect I love is that people who know very little if anything about guns are educated that yes people do carry whether they realize it or not. I am from MI and the only way I can carry is openly. I had a woman ask me if I was police to which I said no. She then said how I can carry a gun if I am not a police officer. She had no clue about concealed carry or open. The woman thought you had to be a cop to carry period. She was def not against it but just did not know.

 

[B2Tall]

Even those most kindly disposed toward your way of thinking cannot think of everything, and they sometimes need help with things that they cannot foresee themselves.

Hence the 10th Amendment.

 

[Punch]

You fail to take into account that the Constitution may be amended. Therefore the US Supreme Court does not have the final say regarding what the Constitution states.

In addition, the Declaration of Independence states that the citizen has the duty to overthrow a government which becomes grievously oppressive.

No, you fail at reading comprehension. Re-read my post, slowly, starting with the part that says "When Congress or the People do not like the decisions of the judiciary, they can over-rule the judiciary by passing more clear Amendments and laws." The Supreme Court is the final say on the Constitution as it exists when they hear the case in question. Nothing about this prevents the Legislative Branch from ammending the Constitution, nor does it compell the Exectutive Branch to enforce their decision (see Andrew Jackson and plight of the Cherokee Nation).

As to the second statement you made; what does it have to do with the discussion.