Glad to hear it. There was another carry related site not too long ago, and it vanished. And I've seen many sites come and go over the years.
Thanks! Yes, I'm up to a whopping post count of three!
The Open Carry Argument
- Thread starter Mainsail
- Start date
Glad to hear it. There was another carry related site not too long ago, and it vanished. And I've seen many sites come and go over the years.
Thanks! Yes, I'm up to a whopping post count of three!
tattedupboy
Thank God I'm alive!
Actually, I'm living proof that the argument does hold some weight. For those of you who haven't read it, read this thread:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/6194-im-back.html
Not trying to scare people into not open carrying. All I'm saying is that, contrary to what you say, open carriers do get their weapons taken from them. I followed all the rules of situational awareness that have been drilled into my head since I was young, and it still happened to me. While carrying openly is certainly a deterrent, nobody shoould ever develop a false sense of security that carrying openly will assure that nothing bad will happen to them.
Mainsail
Member
Can you link the news story?
tattedupboy
Thank God I'm alive!
I read the newspaper the entire time I was in the hospital, and the story never appeared.
Mainsail
Member
This is somewhat confusing, because even in a big city like Seattle, if a guy gets shot in the back and robbed, it makes the news for days.
charliej47
New member
OC Argument
I read this when it was first posted and have given it a lot of thought. :wacko:
I have to disagree with the over all post. :hang3:
If I have to draw my weapon then I will win or loose but the loss will be because I was not fast enough to defend myself or my family!~ :cray:
Solemn is primarily defined as religious or marked by a serious ceremony or awe-inspiring. I look upon carrying either OC or CC as an everyday occurrence. Having to use my weapon would be because of necessity therefore a required use.
I refuse to play the blame game that because I used my weapon I therefore accept or assume some type of guilt. The guilt I will accept is the guilt of failure to act is such a fashion as to force the BG to loose. :cray:
I believe that the primary original OP has been high-jacked and I am only addressing it. :biggrin:
I read this when it was first posted and have given it a lot of thought. :wacko:
I have to disagree with the over all post. :hang3:
If I have to draw my weapon then I will win or loose but the loss will be because I was not fast enough to defend myself or my family!~ :cray:
Solemn is primarily defined as religious or marked by a serious ceremony or awe-inspiring. I look upon carrying either OC or CC as an everyday occurrence. Having to use my weapon would be because of necessity therefore a required use.
I refuse to play the blame game that because I used my weapon I therefore accept or assume some type of guilt. The guilt I will accept is the guilt of failure to act is such a fashion as to force the BG to loose. :cray:
I believe that the primary original OP has been high-jacked and I am only addressing it. :biggrin:
Mainsail
Member
I don’t think you grasped what I was saying. It has nothing to do with blame or guilt. Talk to anyone who has had to draw a weapon in self defense, every one of them will tell you they’d prefer to have not been in the situation in the first place. Yes, they are all glad they prevailed, but they would all rather not have been there if it were possible. I know there are a lot of internet tough-guys who will tell you they’d really like to bust a cap in some low-life scumbag that tries to rob them, however, in real life it just doesn’t work out that way.
If you are forced into a self defense situation, you will lose. The degree of loss is the only thing that’s negotiable. Loss can be a changed view of your own vulnerability, the loss can be financial, or the loss can even be something much worse. No defense situation is ordered or predictable. You or the loved ones you are trying to protect can be injured or killed. The weapon only evens the playing field, it doesn’t tip the scale toward you.
Remember, the essay is about why I prefer open carry. As I stated, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death (or maiming). The essay is about me, about my values, and my decision process. We shoot to stop the threat, and we don’t point our weapon at anything we don’t want to destroy. Since I cannot rebuild a human body, I’d prefer not to destroy one. I am willing to defend myself and my loved ones, and in certain scenarios, another innocent, from the predators. Firearms are, to me anyway, a last resort option.
Charlie, I'd recommend reading Link Removed if you don't get this point. It's a great read for many other reasons as well.
If you are forced to kill someone, you will likely have emotional scars yourself, unless you're a sociopath. You also could be arrested and dragged through some expensive legal hassles.
Edit to add: I'd like to cite a passage from Ayoob's book:
"Violent death by gunfire is a gruesome, traumatizing thing to watch, especially if it is committed by a parent before the eyes of a child close enough to the unfolding situation to realize, now, or later, if the act may not have been entirely justified.Too many American men think that an act of violence will create or reinforce the respect of the ones they love. This belief is a by-product of that part of the American spirit that lives vicariously through the entertainment media which glorify physical violence. Perhaps too often, this belief is well founded, but an act of extreme violence in front of your loved ones can still be an extreme emotional shock that can alter forever, and in a most unpleasant way, the light in which they look at you."
I also vaguely recall anecdotes from the book in which good men who've defended their families end up in divorce as a result.
Mainsail
Member
Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states.
In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.
On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that
"t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
"[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."
Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana , Virginia (see additional settlement here <http://hamptonroads.com/node/491877> ), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here <http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856> .
On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states.
In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.
On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that
"t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that
"[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."
Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana , Virginia (see additional settlement here <http://hamptonroads.com/node/491877> ), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here <http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856> .
I personaly have not yet, but would have to say that people bring up police open carry. Now with that said how does one know they are police just becauce they have a badge it could be a security badge. I know michigan is a open carry but some people like to say now that you have a ccw/cpl you have to do that and do not have the right to open carry any longer.
utimmer43
New member
Those people would be fools.
edstephan
New member
To me, gun owners being the ones who get the most worked up about this particular issue. Most "regular folks" are surprised that OC is legal and then their mind moves on to another subject. We are our own worst enemies. Remember Jim Zumbo from Outdoor Life? He was a prominent gun writer who came out against "black rifles". What's the point of a high capacity assault rifle anyways? The shitstorm that followed, from guys like us, cause his dismissal from the magazine after 20+ years. He has not worked in the industry since.
I have been OC'ing the majority of the time for 20+ years, the times I CC is when I feel it is appropriate for the surroundings or required by law. When I get up in the morning and get dressed my firearm is just another tool that I carry, the same as my cell phone, pocket knife and keys. Since the late 70’s through the late 80’s OC’ing was never looked at as an issue. Since the early 90’s the conditioning to hide our firearms has been stepped up. It wasn’t till the early 1990’s that the schools started teaching that guns are so evil that they will make their owners in to mass murderers. Most of us have been conditioned to hide their firearm to avoid “scaring the sheeple” because they are bad and only criminals carry guns or you should be ashamed to be seen wearing such an evil tool.
Here are my reasons for OC’ing
1. Speed and comfort.
2. Don't have to modify the way I dress to accommodate the firearm.
3. Political statement.
4. and, it really pisses off the anti-gunners and some gun owners like nothing else!
In my case, tactical advantage of surprise is given up for speed and comfort.
I've had to use my firearm twice in my life since the service.
The first time it almost cost me my life as I could not present fast enough to avoid getting stabbed in the chest. I got caught up in my cover garment.
The second time I fired first because I was faster. I very seldom CC anymore.
This debate has been raging for over 2yrs at www.pafoa.org
An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan
I have been OC'ing the majority of the time for 20+ years, the times I CC is when I feel it is appropriate for the surroundings or required by law. When I get up in the morning and get dressed my firearm is just another tool that I carry, the same as my cell phone, pocket knife and keys. Since the late 70’s through the late 80’s OC’ing was never looked at as an issue. Since the early 90’s the conditioning to hide our firearms has been stepped up. It wasn’t till the early 1990’s that the schools started teaching that guns are so evil that they will make their owners in to mass murderers. Most of us have been conditioned to hide their firearm to avoid “scaring the sheeple” because they are bad and only criminals carry guns or you should be ashamed to be seen wearing such an evil tool.
Here are my reasons for OC’ing
1. Speed and comfort.
2. Don't have to modify the way I dress to accommodate the firearm.
3. Political statement.
4. and, it really pisses off the anti-gunners and some gun owners like nothing else!
In my case, tactical advantage of surprise is given up for speed and comfort.
I've had to use my firearm twice in my life since the service.
The first time it almost cost me my life as I could not present fast enough to avoid getting stabbed in the chest. I got caught up in my cover garment.
The second time I fired first because I was faster. I very seldom CC anymore.
This debate has been raging for over 2yrs at www.pafoa.org
An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan
ecbaatz
New member
Why not one in the chamber. I understand you have a loaded back up but what if you go for the open carry? Then you are behind the curve. Or is the backup your normal weapon and you open carry in a non standard location. Remember in times of stress we fall back on our lowest lever of training.
Just curious.
bnhcomputing
New member
On April 20, 2009 The Wisconsin AG issued an advisory memorandum instructing ALL DA's and LEO's to STOP the harassment of the citizens for OC. The mere presence of a firearm is in and of itself, not a crime. There are now thousands of people carrying throughout the state of WI as that is our ONLY means of defense.
I posted mainsail's entire argument to several different pro-gun forums, it is not going to disappear, and neither is OC.
Load up, Holster up, and carry on!
Honestly, I never gave it much thought. When I first started open carrying, I was nervous and somewhat afraid, so I never had one in the chamber. I guess it sort of became a habit after a while.
I train equally with the OC and the CC gun, but prefer the OC because it's larger and feels better in my hand.
Maybe I'll have to give my habits a second thought!
kengrubb
New member
We've seen the value of concealed carry for decades in the form of lower crime rates. It creates a higher degree of randomness for the criminal attacker who preys on others. If they don't know who is carrying, then it raises more doubts. I believe it was from John Lott's own data there were some trends of decreased violent crime and increased property crime after the passage of RTC laws. The "This Poo Ain't Worth It" maxim.
kengrubb
New member
Because it has not yet happened does not mean the trend cannot begin. With 4-5 million concealed carry licensees, and fewer actually carrying, I suspect the number of folks openly carrying is much smaller still.
Open carry, in most states, remains something that causes people to ooh and ah and view as something which is at least somewhat out of the ordinary. As people, law abiding and otherwise, begin to see open carry as normal, perhaps then criminals will begin to target and prey upon open carriers.
Please note that I'm not saying it has happened, only that the possibility seems real enough to consider and weigh.
kengrubb
New member
Surprise is a double edged blade. A criminal attacker has the element of surprise in that they get to choose their victim, time of day, lighting conditions, weather, comfortable shoes, clean underwear, and ideal attack location. However, the concealed carrier does have at least some ability to surprise a criminal attacker.
Whether one is an open or concealed carrier, one can always choose to live in Condition Yellow and remain alert and aware of their surroundings and persons near them. Behavior tells a lot about a person. How they walk, how they carry themselves, where they look, do they appear confident, etc. This is true of criminals, armed citizens, and police officers. All three groups also have the ability to develop and exercise skills in spotting strength or weakness in others and to use that information accordingly.
The open carrier, whether it's a uniformed police officer or an armed citizen, has no ability to surprise a criminal attacker with a weapon. The criminal attacker knows going in there's a weapon.
