8 tips on contacts with 'open carry' citizens (policeone.com) [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 8 tips on contacts with 'open carry' citizens (policeone.com)


HerrGlock
04-25-2011, 10:52
http://www.policeone.com/off-duty/articles/3502436-8-tips-on-contacts-with-open-carry-citizens/
Open carry is gaining momentum in areas of the country that won’t allow concealed carry permits, or where those permits are so highly restricted as to be all but impossible to obtain. Debates and arguments for and against open carry are fueling increasing concerns and outright alarm on both sides.

coondog22554
04-25-2011, 11:12
" Understand that — as with any belief that people feel strongly about — open carry is a form of political protest."

:wow:

RussP
04-25-2011, 11:16
Some quotes from the article: It is always the intent of the person, not the firearm, that matters.


A side note to the citizen carrying openly: You should expect to be contacted law enforcement. You should expect to be feared by some, and considered to be a person of interest to many. Understand that by wearing a weapon in the open, you raise the perceived threat level in the eyes of law enforcement and other citizens. Friendly behavior goes a long way. People key on behavior rather than the weapon. Most folks respond well to a smile, polite behavior or a warm hello rather than a cold stare. I recommend that approach. You will be surprised how many people respond in a positive manner when you do that. Actually, this holds true on both sides of an open carry discussion, contact, or encounter...

Steve in Az
04-25-2011, 13:10
The reason there is "increasing concerns and outright alarm on both sides" is because the liberal agenda has tried to make gun ownership a "shameful" thing---and largely succeeded. It's your RIGHT, exercise it. The mamby-pambys will come around in time.

In the words of Uncle Ted "the second amendment is my concealed carry permit."

WHEC724
04-25-2011, 13:18
"6.) It still takes time to draw and load the firearm. It can be done in around two seconds for well trained individuals. As with any contact, watch the hands and body language. "

'Very naive statement here. I'm also surprised by the author's assumption that all open-carry is a political statement. I found the article to be very poor and mis-informed advice.

Thorazine
04-27-2011, 10:48
3.) Targeting open carry by finding ways to charge people with other violations and then ticketing or arresting them may backfire and could be very expensive in the long run. One of the universities in Utah apparently tried this approach and it was leaked to the press. Now we run into civil liberties violations, etc.

Ahh shucks! =(

A6Gator
04-27-2011, 11:01
I thought it was a thoughtful, well-written article.

glock75
04-27-2011, 18:56
Good article. I liked it.

kensteele
04-27-2011, 19:32
I don't do sigs but if I did, this would be mine:

"In the end, we have to look at what the law allows and be able to deal with a legal activity, regardless of our personal feelings on the matter."

I personally think the article is pretty good.

Bren
04-27-2011, 19:42
The reason there is "increasing concerns and outright alarm on both sides" is because the liberal agenda has tried to make gun ownership a "shameful" thing---and largely succeeded. It's your RIGHT, exercise it. The mamby-pambys will come around in time.

In the words of Uncle Ted "the second amendment is my concealed carry permit."

Really?

I've carried guns since before I was old enough to vote and everybody in my family, young, old, male or female, owns and carries guns. But when I see some stranger walking around a store with a gun, my first thought is not a warm fuzzy feeling that he's a potential shooting buddy. If that's your first reaction, you'll need a lot more than a gun to protect yourself in the real world.

I'm just getting tired of minivan commandos who got their first gun last year, acting like they are saviors of gun ownership who are going to liberate everybody's minds with open carry. They're the worst enemies gun owners have right now.

kensteele
04-27-2011, 19:50
Really?

I've carried guns since before I was old enough to vote and everybody in my family, young, old, male or female, owns and carries guns. But when I see some stranger walking around a store with a gun, my first thought is not a warm fuzzy feeling that he's a potential shooting buddy. If that's your first reaction, you'll need a lot more than a gun to protect yourself in the real world.

I'm just getting tired of minivan commandos who got their first gun last year, acting like they are saviors of gun ownership who are going to liberate everybody's minds with open carry. They're the worst enemies gun owners have right now.

"Even if you don’t agree with open carry, stay objective and keep your feelings to yourself."

Mayhem like Me
04-27-2011, 20:16
"Even if you don’t agree with open carry, stay objective and keep your feelings to yourself."

Pot meet kettle! you don't own this site!

GioaJack
04-27-2011, 21:47
"Even if you don’t agree with open carry, stay objective and keep your feelings to yourself."


Do you actually understand the concept of an open forum?


Jack

kensteele
04-27-2011, 22:12
The PoliceOne Firearms Corner
with Ron Avery

Here are some thoughts to ponder as well as tips to go by.

"5.Even if you don’t agree with open carry, stay objective and keep your feelings to yourself."

http://www.policeone.com/off-duty/articles/3502436-8-tips-on-contacts-with-open-carry-citizens/

Pot meet kettle! you don't own this site!

Do you actually understand the concept of an open forum?


Jack

It's a quote from the article, did you even read it? :upeyes:

If you would spend more time listening to good advice.....

PEC-Memphis
04-28-2011, 07:51
Do you actually understand the concept of an open forum?


Jack

Jack - you always make me chuckle.

Gunnut 45/454
04-28-2011, 11:05
Quote:
3.) Targeting open carry by finding ways to charge people with other violations and then ticketing or arresting them may backfire and could be very expensive in the long run. One of the universities in Utah apparently tried this approach and it was leaked to the press. Now we run into civil liberties violations, etc.

Wow! Can't charge someone for exersising there right to carry so lets trump up any charge we can!! I think this is one cop that needs to loose his job! This is exactly the type we don't need enforcing the laws!:steamed:

GeorgiaRedfish
04-28-2011, 11:20
Let the cop bashing begin! :upeyes:

Steve in Az
04-28-2011, 13:08
I'm just getting tired of minivan commandos who got their first gun last year, acting like they are saviors of gun ownership who are going to liberate everybody's minds with open carry. They're the worst enemies gun owners have right now.

First gun? Commando? Look at your avatar there, junior.

The partially-committed, such as yourself, "behaving" for the rest of the public are the worst threat to our rights--In my opinion.

BTW, I'm 49, have owned guns since I can remember, and an Army war veteran. Maybe get your facts straight before running your mouth.

...oh, and I've never owned a mini van.

Is that "Bren" as in Bren-Ten? And I'm the commando...:upeyes:

eracer
04-28-2011, 13:14
The fear of open carry is just that - FEAR.

A criminal with the intent to commit a crime using a firearm is a criminal whether that firearm is concealed or not.

Likewise, a law-abiding citizen is not more likely to use a weapon when he or she carries it openly.

These are simple truths.

My 'feeling' is that open carry tends to alarm police, and criminals alike. Criminals should NEVER be allowed to feel comfortable around me, and police have nothing to fear.

Toorop
04-28-2011, 19:42
Quote:
3.) Targeting open carry by finding ways to charge people with other violations and then ticketing or arresting them may backfire and could be very expensive in the long run. One of the universities in Utah apparently tried this approach and it was leaked to the press. Now we run into civil liberties violations, etc.

Wow! Can't charge someone for exersising there right to carry so lets trump up any charge we can!! I think this is one cop that needs to loose his job! This is exactly the type we don't need enforcing the laws!:steamed:

Well if they didn't break the law they could not "trump up any charge they can" could they. I am sorry but it is not the fault of the officer that the open carry ccw warrior was breaking the law while open carrying. Do you think officers are at fault when they arrest a murderer who just shot someone with a handgun and is now openly carrying a weapon around? Should the officer be fired because they trumped up charges for someone who broke the law?

jdavionic
04-28-2011, 19:54
Interesting opinions. I thought the opinion on the time for loading was inaccurate; however I think his general point was that while faster than drawing from concealed, it still takes time. And assessing hands and body language are key to assessing the person's intentions.

jdavionic
04-28-2011, 19:58
Let the cop bashing begin! :upeyes:

Not sure why folks would do that here. The guy's opinions are based on walking in his shoes (LE shoes, to be specific). It's a different perspective than mine and many others here. I don't agree with all of the opinions that he posted (e.g., it's a political statement). However from his perspective that represents his opinion.

RussP
05-13-2011, 06:24
Back to the top for holesinpaper.

BlayGlock
05-13-2011, 07:16
Also a good article like his ccw one. I hope some more LEOs weigh in. In Texas we do not have open carry yet so it is not an issue here.

HexHead
05-13-2011, 07:36
In a lot of situations, this will get you tazed.

5.) Even if you don’t agree with open carry, stay objective and keep your feelings to yourself. It is the behavior of the person — not the gun — that we key on. If they get annoyed and start protesting you, remember that unless they are threatening you with harm, they have a right to voice their opinion, even if they raise their voice at you.

RussP
05-13-2011, 08:08
In a lot of situations, this will get you tazed.5.) Even if you don’t agree with open carry, stay objective and keep your feelings to yourself. It is the behavior of the person — not the gun — that we key on. If they get annoyed and start protesting you, remember that unless they are threatening you with harm, they have a right to voice their opinion, even if they raise their voice at you. You say, "a lot of situations." Are you saying just raising ones voice would result in tazing? Could you maybe add some detail to one or two of those situations?

Arc Angel
05-13-2011, 08:20
Really?

I've carried guns since before I was old enough to vote and everybody in my family, young, old, male or female, owns and carries guns. But when I see some stranger walking around a store with a gun, my first thought is not a warm fuzzy feeling that he's a potential shooting buddy. If that's your first reaction, you'll need a lot more than a gun to protect yourself in the real world.

I'm just getting tired of minivan commandos who got their first gun last year, acting like they are saviors of gun ownership who are going to liberate everybody's minds with open carry. They're the worst enemies gun owners have right now.

:wow: Well, I'll be ...... !

You know, Bren, over the years you and I haven't agreed on too much; but, I got 'a tell you: I'm really with you on this one! You have exactly expressed my sentiments on this divisive issue better than I've been able to say it for myself. Maybe you just have to be older and wiser? I don't know; but it's 2011, not 1776; and all of us who carry need to remember that.

Very well said! :thumbsup:

Bill Lumberg
05-13-2011, 08:43
Plus one Bren and Arc Angel. Very true.

Donn57
05-13-2011, 08:43
Quote:
3.) Targeting open carry by finding ways to charge people with other violations and then ticketing or arresting them may backfire and could be very expensive in the long run. One of the universities in Utah apparently tried this approach and it was leaked to the press. Now we run into civil liberties violations, etc.

Wow! Can't charge someone for exersising there right to carry so lets trump up any charge we can!! I think this is one cop that needs to loose his job! This is exactly the type we don't need enforcing the laws!:steamed:

I read this as a admonition against trying this tactic, not endorsing it.

pizza_pablo
05-13-2011, 09:32
I read this as a admonition against trying this tactic, not endorsing it.
Same here. I thought of all the BS between the Wisconsin Open Carriers and Police / DA.

As for the article, I thought the previous was good http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/2144601-Dealing-with-citizens-legally-carrying-a-concealed-weapon/
and this one was well intentioned. I too, disagree with his thought, or at least how it came across, that all OC is politically motivated, but I do not take issue with the generalization. I do not OC, nor do I know any who do. Fortunately, CCW is allowed, in my state.

RussP
05-13-2011, 10:41
Quote:
3.) Targeting open carry by finding ways to charge people with other violations and then ticketing or arresting them may backfire and could be very expensive in the long run. One of the universities in Utah apparently tried this approach and it was leaked to the press. Now we run into civil liberties violations, etc.

Wow! Can't charge someone for exersising there right to carry so lets trump up any charge we can!! I think this is one cop that needs to loose his job! This is exactly the type we don't need enforcing the laws!:steamed:I read this as a admonition against trying this tactic, not endorsing it.Same here...It was an admonition.

Booker
05-13-2011, 13:03
How about just 1 tip:

If open carry is legal in your jurisdiction, when you see a person openly carrying a gun, if you have no RAS that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, then leave the person alone!

RussP
05-13-2011, 14:54
How about just 1 tip:

If open carry is legal in your jurisdiction, when you see a person openly carrying a gun, if you have no RAS that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, then leave the person alone!That would work if all circumstances surrounding the individual could be known without contact.

g22od
05-13-2011, 15:19
Open carry would have prevented this.

kensteele
05-13-2011, 16:57
That would work if all circumstances surrounding the individual could be known without contact.

Please help me understand what this means. Are you saying when an officer spots the firearm, he wants to know "what's up" so he makes contact to simply find out "what's going on?"

Arc Angel
05-13-2011, 17:55
How about just 1 tip:

If open carry is legal in your jurisdiction, when you see a person openly carrying a gun, if you have no RAS that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, then leave the person alone!

I got 'a tell you!

This line of reasoning is like handing a carte blanche to every single gangbanger, serial killer, street thief, pedophile, or liquor store robber in America. I'm able to think of dozens (and dozens) of people I'd be very uncomfortable watching walk around town with a gun.

This idea some people have about, 'returning America to its colonial roots' and advertising the Constitution by wearing loaded handguns in public is really no better than antisocial pseudo-intellectual rationale. At its core this sort of specious reasoning seeks to excuse the mischievous and disruptive social behaviors of people who (rather clearly) care more about being publicly obstreperous than they do about getting along with society-at-large.

'Kissy-faced' publicity statements don't work with me - Not on either side of the law. Either way, public open carry is ill-considered. To my mind, it's only the final reality these behaviors are sure to produce that matters; and, people, ON A NATIONAL LEVEL that final reality can't be good.

It is every police officer's job to: protect, defend, and investigate - especially, against the unusual. What constructive social purpose does it serve for gang members to be able to move with impunity through police purview? The correct answer is, of course, none. How am I supposed to feel, 'safer' when a confrontational woman shows up at my kid's ball game openly carrying a handgun? The correct answer is, smart parents will immediately take their children home.

We've got a guy, here, in town. He wears scruffy, 'red neck' clothes; he's got a straggly beard, an unmistakable attitude, and a clearly visible handgun on his belt. I've run into him, like, twice - Once on the street and again at Wal-Mart. Each time he made me feel very strange.

What am I supposed to think? Is he harmless? (Maybe!) Is he socially maladjusted? (Definitely!) Is he a, 'ticking time bomb' just waiting to go off? (I don't know!) Exactly what is this fellow and his strange behavior doing to advance MY Second Amendment Rights? (Outside of his own head ...... absolutely nothing!)

Do I need to watch him? (Only a fool wouldn't.) Can I, or more correctly, should I trust him behind my back? (Behind your back, maybe; behind mine, never!) Is he wearing a legally owned sidearm; or is it something he stole? (How am I supposed to know whether he got the weapon legally, or illegally?) Is he angry; is he happy; is he sad; is he planning his last day on Planet Earth?

These are all questions that this individual's presence demands any rational, thinking person to consider - Particularly if that rational, thinking person happens to earn his living in law enforcement where everything out of the ordinary demands investigation.

Sure the Second Amendment is important - Very important. Ain't nothing wrong with public open carry, either - IF you're in a rural farm community where such behavior wouldn't be taken as out-of-place. The reality, however, is that this is the twenty-first century. We don't live in colonial America, anymore. George Washington isn't in the White House. Barack Obama is!

Our national society is not agrarian and community based. Instead, the world we live in is capitalistic, corporate, and almost 100% dependent upon the broad distribution of complex manufactured products. People like George Washington have been replaced by other people like George Hennard. Our big city streets are, literally, crawling with criminals of every strip. More than one of our college campuses has some sort of undiagnosed lunatic just waiting to reveal himself; e.g.: Whitman, Cho, and Loughner.

Then there are the millions, perhaps tens of millions, of illegal aliens living among us. Should these guys, also, be allowed to walk down our public streets, carrying weapons, and remain unchallenged - Should they? Why help dishonest, potentially dangerous people like these by doing things that allow them to hide behind the Second Amendment?

Personally, I consider it a significant, 'badge of social and personal trust' for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to allow me to go almost anywhere, (literally) 'armed to the teeth'. I'm neither mischievous, duplicitious, or socially discourteous enough to force other people to have to live with the barefaced reality of my deadly weapons.

Those weapons may, very well, be there; but, I'm not going to ruin anybody's afternoon in town by forcing them to wonder, 'What is that strange man doing with that gun?' Worse! 'What is that strange man GOING TO DO with that gun?' Even in Thomas Jefferson's day, somebody walking around with two horse pistols and a sword would have been considered to be either a soldier or a man going off to war.

Modern American society is already more than violent enough; why do anything in order to make it become, or even appear to be, even worse.

RussP
05-13-2011, 18:04
Please help me understand what this means. Are you saying when an officer spots the firearm, he wants to know "what's up" so he makes contact to simply find out "what's going on?"Just the gun alone, no. Are there other circumstances present? There may be. Would they prompt contact? Maybe.

kensteele
05-13-2011, 18:44
I got 'a tell you!

This line of reasoning is like handing a carte blanche to every single gangbanger, serial killer, street thief, pedophile, or liquor store robber in America. I'm able to think of dozens (and dozens) of people I'd be very uncomfortable watching walk around town with a gun.

This idea some people have about, 'returning America to its colonial roots' and advertising the Constitution by wearing loaded handguns in public is really no better than antisocial pseudo-intellectual rationale. At its core this sort of specious reasoning seeks to excuse the mischievous and disruptive social behaviors of people who (rather clearly) care more about being publicly obstreperous than they do about getting along with society-at-large.

'Kissy-faced' publicity statements don't work with me - Not on either side of the law. Either way, public open carry is ill-considered. To my mind, it's only the final reality these behaviors are sure to produce that matters; and, people, ON A NATIONAL LEVEL that final reality can't be good.

It is every police officer's job to: protect, defend, and investigate - especially, against the unusual. What constructive social purpose does it serve for gang members to be able to move with impunity through police purview? The correct answer is, of course, none. How am I supposed to feel, 'safer' when a confrontational woman shows up at my kid's ball game openly carrying a handgun? The correct answer is, smart parents will immediately take their children home.

We've got a guy, here, in town. He wears scruffy, 'red neck' clothes; he's got a straggly beard, an unmistakable attitude, and a clearly visible handgun on his belt. I've run into him, like, twice - Once on the street and again at Wal-Mart. Each time he made me feel very strange.

What am I supposed to think? Is he harmless? (Maybe!) Is he socially maladjusted? (Definitely!) Is he a, 'ticking time bomb' just waiting to go off? (I don't know!) Exactly what is this fellow and his strange behavior doing to advance MY Second Amendment Rights? (Outside of his own head ...... absolutely nothing!)

Do I need to watch him? (Only a fool wouldn't.) Can I, or more correctly, should I trust him behind my back? (Behind your back, maybe; behind mine, never!) Is he wearing a legally owned sidearm; or is it something he stole? (How am I supposed to know whether he got the weapon legally, or illegally?) Is he angry; is he happy; is he sad; is he planning his last day on Planet Earth?

These are all questions that this individual's presence demands any rational, thinking person to consider - Particularly if that rational, thinking person happens to earn his living in law enforcement where everything out of the ordinary demands investigation.

Sure the Second Amendment is important - Very important. Ain't nothing wrong with public open carry, either - IF you're in a rural farm community where such behavior wouldn't be taken as out-of-place. The reality, however, is that this is the twenty-first century. We don't live in colonial America, anymore. George Washington isn't in the White House. Barack Obama is!

Our national society is not agrarian and community based. Instead, the world we live in is capitalistic, corporate, and almost 100% dependent upon the broad distribution of complex manufactured products. People like George Washington have been replaced by other people like George Hennard. Our big city streets are, literally, crawling with criminals of every strip. More than one of our college campuses has some sort of undiagnosed lunatic just waiting to reveal himself; e.g.: Whitman, Cho, and Loughner.

Then there are the millions, perhaps tens of millions, of illegal aliens living among us. Should these guys, also, be allowed to walk down our public streets, carrying weapons, and remain unchallenged - Should they? Why help dishonest, potentially dangerous people like these by doing things that allow them to hide behind the Second Amendment?

Personally, I consider it a significant, 'badge of social and personal trust' for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to allow me to go almost anywhere, (literally) 'armed to the teeth'. I'm neither mischievous, duplicitious, or socially discourteous enough to force other people to have to live with the barefaced reality of my deadly weapons.

Those weapons may, very well, be there; but, I'm not going to ruin anybody's afternoon in town by forcing them to wonder, 'What is that strange man doing with that gun?' Worse! 'What is that strange man GOING TO DO with that gun?' Even in Thomas Jefferson's day, somebody walking around with two horse pistols and a sword would have been considered to be either a soldier or a man going off to war.

Modern American society is already more than violent enough; why do anything in order to make it become, or even appear to be, even worse.

I don't even know where to begin. Wow, you need to get out more.

kensteele
05-13-2011, 18:52
Just the gun alone, no. Are there other circumstances present? There may be. Would they prompt contact? Maybe.

That's what I am asking. Absent of pretty much anything else (reasonable), can or should the officer make friendly contact simply to see "what's up" and then go from there?

Officer is having lunch at a table, reading a book. Looks up for a second and sees a man walking down the aisle on his way out the door and he spots the OC weapon. Officer can either use his fork to dig into his next bite and keep reading his book or he can stop what he's doing and go have a look. Does he need RAS to stop and question the guy? Obviously he can stop him without RAS and hope the OCers stops and talk to him so he can develop something interesting. "hey you; where are you going with that handgun on?"

Arc Angel
05-13-2011, 18:54
I don't even know where to begin. Wow, you need to get out more.

And here we have the first Ad hominem reply from someone who - out of his own mouth - chose to sneer rather than to read and consider. Is that the best you can do, Ken? Because, if it is, I'm very disappointed in you; and, of course, won't take anything else you have to say seriously.

(Just out of curiosity, why do so many internet commandos choose to quote posts they don't agree with - or won't even read - in the entirety? Kind 'a silly and excessive, isn't it.)

:dunno:

Oso
05-13-2011, 18:56
I don't even know where to begin. Wow, you need to get out more.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oso
05-13-2011, 19:13
I got 'a tell you!

This line of reasoning is like handing a carte blanche to every single gangbanger, serial killer, street thief, pedophile, or liquor store robber in America. I'm able to think of dozens (and dozens) of people I'd be very uncomfortable watching walk around town with a gun.

This idea some people have about, 'returning America to its colonial roots' and advertising the Constitution by wearing loaded handguns in public is really no better than antisocial pseudo-intellectual rationale. At its core this sort of specious reasoning seeks to excuse the mischievous and disruptive social behaviors of people who (rather clearly) care more about being publicly obstreperous than they do about getting along with society-at-large.

'Kissy-faced' publicity statements don't work with me - Not on either side of the law. Either way, public open carry is ill-considered. To my mind, it's only the final reality these behaviors are sure to produce that matters; and, people, ON A NATIONAL LEVEL that final reality can't be good.

It is every police officer's job to: protect, defend, and investigate - especially, against the unusual. What constructive social purpose does it serve for gang members to be able to move with impunity through police purview? The correct answer is, of course, none. How am I supposed to feel, 'safer' when a confrontational woman shows up at my kid's ball game openly carrying a handgun? The correct answer is, smart parents will immediately take their children home.

We've got a guy, here, in town. He wears scruffy, 'red neck' clothes; he's got a straggly beard, an unmistakable attitude, and a clearly visible handgun on his belt. I've run into him, like, twice - Once on the street and again at Wal-Mart. Each time he made me feel very strange.

What am I supposed to think? Is he harmless? (Maybe!) Is he socially maladjusted? (Definitely!) Is he a, 'ticking time bomb' just waiting to go off? (I don't know!) Exactly what is this fellow and his strange behavior doing to advance MY Second Amendment Rights? (Outside of his own head ...... absolutely nothing!)

Do I need to watch him? (Only a fool wouldn't.) Can I, or more correctly, should I trust him behind my back? (Behind your back, maybe; behind mine, never!) Is he wearing a legally owned sidearm; or is it something he stole? (How am I supposed to know whether he got the weapon legally, or illegally?) Is he angry; is he happy; is he sad; is he planning his last day on Planet Earth?

These are all questions that this individual's presence demands any rational, thinking person to consider - Particularly if that rational, thinking person happens to earn his living in law enforcement where everything out of the ordinary demands investigation.

Sure the Second Amendment is important - Very important. Ain't nothing wrong with public open carry, either - IF you're in a rural farm community where such behavior wouldn't be taken as out-of-place. The reality, however, is that this is the twenty-first century. We don't live in colonial America, anymore. George Washington isn't in the White House. Barack Obama is!

Our national society is not agrarian and community based. Instead, the world we live in is capitalistic, corporate, and almost 100% dependent upon the broad distribution of complex manufactured products. People like George Washington have been replaced by other people like George Hennard. Our big city streets are, literally, crawling with criminals of every strip. More than one of our college campuses has some sort of undiagnosed lunatic just waiting to reveal himself; e.g.: Whitman, Cho, and Loughner.

Then there are the millions, perhaps tens of millions, of illegal aliens living among us. Should these guys, also, be allowed to walk down our public streets, carrying weapons, and remain unchallenged - Should they? Why help dishonest, potentially dangerous people like these by doing things that allow them to hide behind the Second Amendment?

Personally, I consider it a significant, 'badge of social and personal trust' for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to allow me to go almost anywhere, (literally) 'armed to the teeth'. I'm neither mischievous, duplicitious, or socially discourteous enough to force other people to have to live with the barefaced reality of my deadly weapons.

Those weapons may, very well, be there; but, I'm not going to ruin anybody's afternoon in town by forcing them to wonder, 'What is that strange man doing with that gun?' Worse! 'What is that strange man GOING TO DO with that gun?' Even in Thomas Jefferson's day, somebody walking around with two horse pistols and a sword would have been considered to be either a soldier or a man going off to war.

Modern American society is already more than violent enough; why do anything in order to make it become, or even appear to be, even worse.

So we punish, restrict, and harass the law-abiding citizens because of the criminals? I don't think anybody will argue against you for questioning somebody you reasonably suspect of criminal intent or involvement. The question is: What is reasonable? Who decides and what are the checks and balances? What are the guildlines?

RussP
05-13-2011, 19:16
That's what I am asking. Absent of pretty much anything else (reasonable), can or should the officer make friendly contact simply to see "what's up" and then go from there?You want to know can and should. Why do you think he would want to?Officer is having lunch at a table, reading a book. Looks up for a second and sees a man walking down the aisle on his way out the door and he spots the OC weapon. Officer can either use his fork to dig into his next bite and keep reading his book or he can stop what he's doing and go have a look. Does he need RAS to stop and question the guy? Obviously he can stop him without RAS and hope the OCers stops and talk to him so he can develop something interesting. "hey you; where are you going with that handgun on?"Again, why do you think the officer would want to make contact?

kensteele
05-13-2011, 19:24
And here we have the first Ad hominem reply from someone who - out of his own mouth - chose to sneer rather than to read and consider. Is that the best you can do, Ken? Because, if it is, I'm very disappointed in you; and, of course, won't take anything else you have to say seriously.

(Just out of curiosity, why do so many internet commandos choose to quote posts they don't agree with - or won't even read - in the entirety? Kind 'a silly and excessive, isn't it.)

:dunno:

No it's not the best I can do, Arc. You are all over the board and I had a lot of questions and I agree with some but disagree with most of this...and I just didn't have a lot of time to spend with each. Plus I didn't want to get into one of the long drawn out 100 pages posts that GT is so famous for. Don't have the energy this weekend to keep up plus I didn't feel like some of your "supporters" ganging up on me.

So I kept it brief but I see you are quickly learning to become like others and taking up the tradition of name-calling like internet commando (honestly I don't even really know what that means) but you can choose to take me seriously or not, entirely up to you.

chris in va
05-13-2011, 19:31
I really think the article was written by someone from a state such as CA or WI, not VA or KY where open carry is an option. The whole 'political protest' line leads me to believe that, and so does the "It still takes time to draw and load the firearm. It can be done in around two seconds for well trained individuals" remark.

CA is the only state I'm aware of where unloaded open carry is required.

kensteele
05-13-2011, 19:39
You want to know can and should. Why do you think he would want to?Again, why do you think the officer would want to make contact?

I believe you said simply leaving that person alone is not a good option and won't work because you cannot truly understand the circumstances unless you make contact with the person. I assumed you meant "make contact" by stopping and possibly questioning.

Personally I think if you don't have RAS, you should not make stop and question the lawful OC, not even for small talk. Or even follow him to his car to see what he is driving or watch him leave the building to see which direction he is heading. Make a mental note (like you would do any other person) and then go back to eating your lunch.

However, I think a lot of officers without RAS may be curious or may not be sure "what's up" and simply make friendly contact and if the person tries to break it off, that might become cause a reaction to either detain or "attempt to get that person to stay of their own free will" depending on who they are, what they look like, their attitude, what they say or don't say, etc. I think it depends on a lot of things whether the officer will make contact or not, a lot of which Arc mentions, and I simply disagree with some of his reasons. But I live in KS so it's probably much different here than where he lives.

Here in KS we have rights. j/k :)

Seriously, I was only curious how you responded to a perfectly good statement that otherwise ended with "leave...alone."

RussP
05-13-2011, 20:32
I believe you said simply leaving that person alone is not a good option and won't work because you cannot truly understand the circumstances unless you make contact with the person. I assumed you meant "make contact" by stopping and possibly questioning.No, did not say any of that.Personally I think if you don't have RAS, you should not make stop and question the lawful OC, not even for small talk. Or even follow him to his car to see what he is driving or watch him leave the building to see which direction he is heading. Make a mental note (like you would do any other person) and then go back to eating your lunch.What makes you think that the vast majority of the time that's not what happens?However, I think a lot of officers without RAS may be curious or may not be sure "what's up" and simply make friendly contact and if the person tries to break it off, that might become cause a reaction to either detain or "attempt to get that person to stay of their own free will" depending on who they are, what they look like, their attitude, what they say or don't say, etc. I think it depends on a lot of things whether the officer will make contact or not, a lot of which Arc mentions, and I simply disagree with some of his reasons. But I live in KS so it's probably much different here than where he lives.

Here in KS we have rights. j/k :)It goes to the totality of circumstances.Seriously, I was only curious how you responded to a perfectly good statement that otherwise ended with "leave...alone."I don't understand that, "leave...alone"? Are you saying I said that?

DanaT
05-13-2011, 20:52
Just the gun alone, no. Are there other circumstances present? There may be. Would they prompt contact? Maybe.

Can you give some examples of what other circumstances would warrant contact?

If I am understanding this, someone walking down the street OC there is no reasonable suspicion. What if someone called the police because they saw someone with a gun. Nothing other than the call reporting a man with a gun walking down the street.

If contact is acceptable because of presence of a machine, would someone driving a Corvette around be able to be stopped to just check everything out and make sure they won't be speeding?

-Dana

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 21:08
Really?

I've carried guns since before I was old enough to vote and everybody in my family, young, old, male or female, owns and carries guns. But when I see some stranger walking around a store with a gun, my first thought is not a warm fuzzy feeling that he's a potential shooting buddy. If that's your first reaction, you'll need a lot more than a gun to protect yourself in the real world.

I'm just getting tired of minivan commandos who got their first gun last year, acting like they are saviors of gun ownership who are going to liberate everybody's minds with open carry. They're the worst enemies gun owners have right now.

Interesting.

RussP
05-13-2011, 21:12
Can you give some examples of what other circumstances would warrant contact? No.If I am understanding this, someone walking down the street OC there is no reasonable suspicion. What if someone called the police because they saw someone with a gun. Nothing other than the call reporting a man with a gun walking down the street.

If contact is acceptable because of presence of a machine, would someone driving a Corvette around be able to be stopped to just check everything out and make sure they won't be speeding?

-Dana:rofl:

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 21:21
I read this as a admonition against trying this tactic, not endorsing it.

Yes, and also an admission that the tactic is commonly used by LEO.

Common enough that he felt compelled to explicitly address it.

Dukeboy01
05-13-2011, 21:26
I got 'a tell you!

This line of reasoning is like handing a carte blanche to every single gangbanger, serial killer, street thief, pedophile, or liquor store robber in America. I'm able to think of dozens (and dozens) of people I'd be very uncomfortable watching walk around town with a gun.

This idea some people have about, 'returning America to its colonial roots' and advertising the Constitution by wearing loaded handguns in public is really no better than antisocial pseudo-intellectual rationale. At its core this sort of specious reasoning seeks to excuse the mischievous and disruptive social behaviors of people who (rather clearly) care more about being publicly obstreperous than they do about getting along with society-at-large.

'Kissy-faced' publicity statements don't work with me - Not on either side of the law. Either way, public open carry is ill-considered. To my mind, it's only the final reality these behaviors are sure to produce that matters; and, people, ON A NATIONAL LEVEL that final reality can't be good.

It is every police officer's job to: protect, defend, and investigate - especially, against the unusual. What constructive social purpose does it serve for gang members to be able to move with impunity through police purview? The correct answer is, of course, none. How am I supposed to feel, 'safer' when a confrontational woman shows up at my kid's ball game openly carrying a handgun? The correct answer is, smart parents will immediately take their children home.

We've got a guy, here, in town. He wears scruffy, 'red neck' clothes; he's got a straggly beard, an unmistakable attitude, and a clearly visible handgun on his belt. I've run into him, like, twice - Once on the street and again at Wal-Mart. Each time he made me feel very strange.

What am I supposed to think? Is he harmless? (Maybe!) Is he socially maladjusted? (Definitely!) Is he a, 'ticking time bomb' just waiting to go off? (I don't know!) Exactly what is this fellow and his strange behavior doing to advance MY Second Amendment Rights? (Outside of his own head ...... absolutely nothing!)

Do I need to watch him? (Only a fool wouldn't.) Can I, or more correctly, should I trust him behind my back? (Behind your back, maybe; behind mine, never!) Is he wearing a legally owned sidearm; or is it something he stole? (How am I supposed to know whether he got the weapon legally, or illegally?) Is he angry; is he happy; is he sad; is he planning his last day on Planet Earth?

These are all questions that this individual's presence demands any rational, thinking person to consider - Particularly if that rational, thinking person happens to earn his living in law enforcement where everything out of the ordinary demands investigation.

Sure the Second Amendment is important - Very important. Ain't nothing wrong with public open carry, either - IF you're in a rural farm community where such behavior wouldn't be taken as out-of-place. The reality, however, is that this is the twenty-first century. We don't live in colonial America, anymore. George Washington isn't in the White House. Barack Obama is!

Our national society is not agrarian and community based. Instead, the world we live in is capitalistic, corporate, and almost 100% dependent upon the broad distribution of complex manufactured products. People like George Washington have been replaced by other people like George Hennard. Our big city streets are, literally, crawling with criminals of every strip. More than one of our college campuses has some sort of undiagnosed lunatic just waiting to reveal himself; e.g.: Whitman, Cho, and Loughner.

Then there are the millions, perhaps tens of millions, of illegal aliens living among us. Should these guys, also, be allowed to walk down our public streets, carrying weapons, and remain unchallenged - Should they? Why help dishonest, potentially dangerous people like these by doing things that allow them to hide behind the Second Amendment?

Personally, I consider it a significant, 'badge of social and personal trust' for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to allow me to go almost anywhere, (literally) 'armed to the teeth'. I'm neither mischievous, duplicitious, or socially discourteous enough to force other people to have to live with the barefaced reality of my deadly weapons.

Those weapons may, very well, be there; but, I'm not going to ruin anybody's afternoon in town by forcing them to wonder, 'What is that strange man doing with that gun?' Worse! 'What is that strange man GOING TO DO with that gun?' Even in Thomas Jefferson's day, somebody walking around with two horse pistols and a sword would have been considered to be either a soldier or a man going off to war.

Modern American society is already more than violent enough; why do anything in order to make it become, or even appear to be, even worse.

Well, I'll quote it all again. Good points and they deserve to be reposted.

Arc Angel
05-13-2011, 22:40
No it's not the best I can do, Arc. You are all over the board and I had a lot of questions and I agree with some but disagree with most of this ... and I just didn't have a lot of time to spend with each. Plus I didn't want to get into one of the long drawn out 100 pages posts that GT is so famous for. Don't have the energy this weekend to keep up plus I didn't feel like some of your "supporters" ganging up on me.

So I kept it brief but I see you are quickly learning to become like others and taking up the tradition of name-calling like internet commando (honestly I don't even really know what that means) but you can choose to take me seriously or not, entirely up to you.

Well, that's a better reply. Still not satisfactory. Still evasive and unwilling to consider, and still ad hominem; but, nonetheless, a better reply.

I don't have any, 'gang' behind me. I'm in this thing all by myself; I was alone over on the PAFOA; and I'm, still, mostly alone here, too. If someone happens to agree with me, that’s great; but, I’m not, ‘all over the board’ soliciting people to agree with me. Neither should you be so sensitive. Nobody's calling you names; only you can say whether or not the appellation applies.

As far as I’m concerned, it's merely an observation on my part. Heck, in this one week alone open carry zealots have insinuated that I am hate-filled, confrontational, rude, and argumentative - All ideations I would, also, use to describe those same open carry zealots who’ve taken such delight in berating me. Do you see me doing a, ‘crybaby act’.

If I, however, describe some of the people who attack me by an appropriate label - a shoe that fits - I immediately get accused of, 'name calling'. Why? Because when you can’t impugn the argument, the next best thing to do is impugn the man.

You know if you're going to make a target out of me then, hey, don't expect me to just stand there and not fire back. At least with me, I don't keep it up. With you open carry guys, you never stop! The insinuations and innuendos just keep on coming and coming. Nobody on your side of the argument seems to be happy until everyone who disagrees with them is beaten down.

(Apparently you haven't noticed my preference for dropping out of threads with OCZ's who have neither the good manners nor common sense to know when to shut up.)

Look, by wasting GT's bandwidth and re:posting everything I had to say - without even considering one single point - you were insulting me; and, not being a stupid man, you MUST have realized that you were being insulting, too. For my own part? I am perfectly willing to logically and objectively discuss modern day open carry in America's urban centers with anyone who's willing to make a: civil, cogent, and honest reply.

You OCZ guys are always the same; you just want to: insult, intimidate, and shut your opposition up. It needs to be pointed out that you are screwing around with,

THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE OTHER THAN YOURSELVES.

Frankly, I have more than sufficient justification to publicly debate what you're trying to do: With my rights, with law enforcement, and with all of the usual societal norms upon which each of us depends as we go about our daily urban lives.

As I go through my own day, I don't want to have to be second guessing what some guy with an exposed gun is up to? Neither do I want local law enforcement to be hamstrung by some deleterious modern interpretation of longstanding constitutional and federal laws – Laws which, in truth, all the states abridge in one way or another. A large part of these states, also, severely abridge a citizen's gun rights; and, may be expected to continue to do so.

It's not (really) a free country – Never was, never! In some respects, neither should it be. The Constitution - as great and noble as it is – was never, 'carved in stone' like, say, The Ten Commandments. Our Founding Fathers allowed this nation’s future legislators to have plenty of room for change. Why? BECAUSE they fully realized that change would be necessary to any (hopefully) progressive society.

Now, I don't know what kind of world you live in; but, mine can be a pretty dangerous place. I've got, at least, two drug dealers and a half dozen drug users within a mile of my home. In the past 4 years, alone, we've had a serious shooting; and I came within a fraction of a second of putting 3 rounds, COM, into a local meth dealer who thought it would be a great idea to dump his meth lab waste on the property. That's the kind of world I live in, here, in the Poconos. Do you really think that I'm going to, somehow, benefit if the local police adopt a new, 'live and let live' public relations policy for people whom they recognize to be carrying guns?

I'm not blind; I read the internet; I'm well aware that the OCZ crowd has recently begun to wrap themselves in the American flag and feign patriotism as a justification for their clearly antisocial behaviors. Come on! Get real. Why should urban: moms, dads, and their children have to tolerate this OC nonsense? Because Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington believed that people should be free to constructively use guns?

If George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson were to be resurrected tomorrow morning, not one of them would, so much as, recognize modern day America as the country they had founded - Wouldn't even recognize it! Times have changed. Daily life is a lot more stressful now, a lot more dangerous, and a whole lot less godly and more different than anything our Founding Fathers might ever have expected to occur.

Were I alive in their day and time, sure, I wouldn't care who did or didn't carry guns, too; but, in today's modern, largely urban, America - An America that's rife with violent crimes and horrific drug abuse - I very much care about who is carrying, 'a piece' and what he intends to do with it.

In the America I grew up in, cops didn't have to wear bulletproof vests, everybody went to church, or synagogue, and believed in God. Politicians weren't allowed to be whoremongers; and disgraced political leaders and their minions weren't rewarded by being given high paying jobs in the organized news media after they got out of jail.

We didn't have to carry guns; so the Second Amendment was pretty much moot and, at least in the Northeast, applied mainly to hunting. It wasn't until I was almost 50 years old that I felt the need to go armed in public; and, since those early days, the social situation that so worried me, then, has only gotten worse – much worse.

So, what's going on now? A bunch of nut case open carry zealots, full of misguided intentions and poorly thought-out ideas, are trying to blur the lines between, 'good and bad people’. They want to make it even more impossible for an average citizen to accurately assess his own immediate level of personal safety. Now you want the police to be curtailed from taking effective action against people who flaunt their guns in public because of what? The Second Amendment? An 1800’s state constitution? An act of the legislature?

Well, I don't! There’s no advantage to me from some OCZ guy terrorizing a bunch of kids playing soccer. That sort of antisocial personal behavior does me absolutely no good. According to your way of thinking, Jared Loughner could saunter down the street wearing his big Glock and 33 round magazine, smiling at people, and waving at cops on the way to his next mass execution.

According to your way of thinking, members of any New York City drug gang could arm themselves and walk down the street completely unchallenged by local law enforcement. If you say otherwise, then, you haven’t really considered the reality of unabridged open carry laws.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE GIVING ANY OF TODAY’S, 'GODLESS REPROBATES' THAT MUCH OF A, 'LICENSE TO KILL'.

I want police officers to be free to investigate, to question, and to assess individual motivation. Screw politics, and political technicalities! As the quality of daily life in America continues to deteriorate, as drug abuse, street crime, and irrational violent behaviors continue to rise, I want every personal advantage and assurance I can get that the guy next to me isn't wearing his gun - for all the world to see – because:

1. He's delusional, and thinks he's Wyatt Earp.
2. He's, ‘anatomically challenged’ and likes to excite women.
3. He's mad at the world and feels a compulsion to express his anger.
4. He's about to start shooting and wants to taunt me, first.
5. He's protecting those constitutional rights he believes I'm too lazy to support.
6. He owns a small gun smithery and has found a new way to attract customers to his establishment.
7. He's just plain socially maladjusted, craves negative attention, and has discovered a perfect, 'socially acceptable excuse' to cover his aberrant personal behavior(s).

Now, because I realize you're not much of a reader, I'm going to close this out with an invitation for anyone who feels more like addressing the argument rather than attacking the man to reply and tell me what benefits society-at-large and me-in-particular are going to enjoy from our home states opening their, 'legislative arms' for everybody to open carry loaded deadly weapons, and remain effectively free from police investigation without what the, 'Philadelphia lawyers' like to call, 'RAS'.

Go ahead, without wrapping yourself up in a bogus cloak of patriotism, tell me how me, my family, and my neighbors stand to benefit from the reality, the politics, of modern urban open carry.

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 23:25
Well, that's a better reply. Still not satisfactory. Still evasive and unwilling to consider, and still ad hominem; but, nonetheless, a better reply.

I don't have any, 'gang' behind me. I'm in this thing all by myself; I was alone over on the PAFOA; and I'm, still, mostly alone here, too. If someone happens to agree with me, that’s great; but, I’m not, ‘all over the board’ soliciting people to agree with me. Neither should you be so sensitive. Nobody's calling you names; only you can say whether or not the appellation applies.

As far as I’m concerned, it's merely an observation on my part. Heck, in this one week alone open carry zealots have insinuated that I am hate-filled, confrontational, rude, and argumentative - All ideations I would, also, use to describe those same open carry zealots who’ve taken such delight in berating me. Do you see me doing a, ‘crybaby act’.

If I, however, describe some of the people who attack me by an appropriate label - a shoe that fits - I immediately get accused of, 'name calling'. Why? Because when you can’t impugn the argument, the next best thing to do is impugn the man.

You know if you're going to make a target out of me then, hey, don't expect me to just stand there and not fire back. At least with me, I don't keep it up. With you open carry guys, you never stop! The insinuations and innuendos just keep on coming and coming. Nobody on your side of the argument seems to be happy until everyone who disagrees with them is beaten down.

(Apparently you haven't noticed my preference for dropping out of threads with OCZ's who have neither the good manners nor common sense to know when to shut up.)

Look, by wasting GT's bandwidth and re:posting everything I had to say - without even considering one single point - you were insulting me; and, not being a stupid man, you MUST have realized that you were being insulting, too. For my own part? I am perfectly willing to logically and objectively discuss modern day open carry in America's urban centers with anyone who's willing to make a: civil, cogent, and honest reply.

You OCZ guys are always the same; you just want to: insult, intimidate, and shut your opposition up. It needs to be pointed out that you are screwing around with,

THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE OTHER THAN YOURSELVES.

Frankly, I have more than sufficient justification to publicly debate what you're trying to do: With my rights, with law enforcement, and with all of the usual societal norms upon which each of us depends as we go about our daily urban lives.

As I go through my own day, I don't want to have to be second guessing what some guy with an exposed gun is up to? Neither do I want local law enforcement to be hamstrung by some deleterious modern interpretation of longstanding constitutional and federal laws – Laws which, in truth, all the states abridge in one way or another. A large part of these states, also, severely abridge a citizen's gun rights; and, may be expected to continue to do so.

It's not (really) a free country – Never was, never! In some respects, neither should it be. The Constitution - as great and noble as it is – was never, 'carved in stone' like, say, The Ten Commandments. Our Founding Fathers allowed this nation’s future legislators to have plenty of room for change. Why? BECAUSE they fully realized that change would be necessary to any (hopefully) progressive society.

Now, I don't know what kind of world you live in; but, mine can be a pretty dangerous place. I've got, at least, two drug dealers and a half dozen drug users within a mile of my home. In the past 4 years, alone, we've had a serious shooting; and I came within a fraction of a second of putting 3 rounds, COM, into a local meth dealer who thought it would be a great idea to dump his meth lab waste on the property. That's the kind of world I live in, here, in the Poconos. Do you really think that I'm going to, somehow, benefit if the local police adopt a new, 'live and let live' public relations policy for people whom they recognize to be carrying guns?

I'm not blind; I read the internet; I'm well aware that the OCZ crowd has recently begun to wrap themselves in the American flag and feign patriotism as a justification for their clearly antisocial behaviors. Come on! Get real. Why should urban: moms, dads, and their children have to tolerate this OC nonsense? Because Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington believed that people should be free to constructively use guns?

If George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson were to be resurrected tomorrow morning, not one of them would, so much as, recognize modern day America as the country they had founded - Wouldn't even recognize it! Times have changed. Daily life is a lot more stressful now, a lot more dangerous, and a whole lot less godly and more different than anything our Founding Fathers might ever have expected to occur.

Were I alive in their day and time, sure, I wouldn't care who did or didn't carry guns, too; but, in today's modern, largely urban, America - An America that's rife with violent crimes and horrific drug abuse - I very much care about who is carrying, 'a piece' and what he intends to do with it.

In the America I grew up in, cops didn't have to wear bulletproof vests, everybody went to church, or synagogue, and believed in God. Politicians weren't allowed to be whoremongers; and disgraced political leaders and their minions weren't rewarded by being given high paying jobs in the organized news media after they got out of jail.

We didn't have to carry guns; so the Second Amendment was pretty much moot and, at least in the Northeast, applied mainly to hunting. It wasn't until I was almost 50 years old that I felt the need to go armed in public; and, since those early days, the social situation that so worried me, then, has only gotten worse – much worse.

So, what's going on now? A bunch of nut case open carry zealots, full of misguided intentions and poorly thought-out ideas, are trying to blur the lines between, 'good and bad people’. They want to make it even more impossible for an average citizen to accurately assess his own immediate level of personal safety. Now you want the police to be curtailed from taking effective action against people who flaunt their guns in public because of what? The Second Amendment? An 1800’s state constitution? An act of the legislature?

Well, I don't! There’s no advantage to me from some OCZ guy terrorizing a bunch of kids playing soccer. That sort of antisocial personal behavior does me absolutely no good. According to your way of thinking, Jared Loughner could saunter down the street wearing his big Glock and 33 round magazine, smiling at people, and waving at cops on the way to his next mass execution.

According to your way of thinking, members of any New York City drug gang could arm themselves and walk down the street completely unchallenged by local law enforcement. If you say otherwise, then, you haven’t really considered the reality of unabridged open carry laws.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE GIVING ANY OF TODAY’S, 'GODLESS REPROBATES' THAT MUCH OF A, 'LICENSE TO KILL'.

I want police officers to be free to investigate, to question, and to assess individual motivation. Screw politics, and political technicalities! As the quality of daily life in America continues to deteriorate, as drug abuse, street crime, and irrational violent behaviors continue to rise, I want every personal advantage and assurance I can get that the guy next to me isn't wearing his gun - for all the world to see – because:

1. He's delusional, and thinks he's Wyatt Earp.
2. He's, ‘anatomically challenged’ and likes to excite women.
3. He's mad at the world and feels a compulsion to express his anger.
4. He's about to start shooting and wants to taunt me, first.
5. He's protecting those constitutional rights he believes I'm too lazy to support.
6. He owns a small gun smithery and has found a new way to attract customers to his establishment.
7. He's just plain socially maladjusted, craves negative attention, and has discovered a perfect, 'socially acceptable excuse' to cover his aberrant personal behavior(s).

Now, because I realize you're not much of a reader, I'm going to close this out with an invitation for anyone who feels more like addressing the argument rather than attacking the man to reply and tell me what benefits society-at-large and me-in-particular are going to enjoy from our home states opening their, 'legislative arms' for everybody to open carry loaded deadly weapons, and remain effectively free from police investigation without what the, 'Philadelphia lawyers' like to call, 'RAS'.

Go ahead, without wrapping yourself up in a bogus cloak of patriotism, tell me how me, my family, and my neighbors stand to benefit from the reality, the politics, of modern urban open carry.

That is full of lulz

holesinpaper
05-13-2011, 23:28
Well, I'll quote it all again. Good points and they deserve to be reposted.

I was quoting his full post so he couldn't edit it later, and possibly lose any of that awesomeness. ;)

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2011, 01:00
That would work if all circumstances surrounding the individual could be known without contact.

Please help me understand what this means. Are you saying when an officer spots the firearm, he wants to know "what's up" so he makes contact to simply find out "what's going on?"


it means that regardless of what any law says, or what the constitution says, your open carry of a firearm is subject to government approval.

only once the government has ascertained and approved your identity, disposition and intentions are you allowed to continue.

Glock_Wenc_21
05-14-2011, 01:16
"disregard"

RussP
05-14-2011, 07:03
it means that regardless of what any law says, or what the constitution says, your open carry of a firearm is subject to government approval.

only once the government has ascertained and approved your identity, disposition and intentions are you allowed to continue.Not really, it goes further than your narrow opinion. It, how someone is engaged or not engaged, actually depends on the totality of circumstances surrounding the person, the big picture, all the elements of the situation.

Daryl in Az
05-14-2011, 08:29
I've carried openly far more than concealed, and I've never had a problem with anyone.

LEO's are respectful, and I've seen no difference in the way people act around me no matter how I'm carrying.

Might be an Arizona thing, though. I feel for folks in less accepting areas of the country.

Daryl

DanaT
05-14-2011, 08:46
1. He's delusional, and thinks he's Wyatt Earp.
2. He's, ‘anatomically challenged’ and likes to excite women.
3. He's mad at the world and feels a compulsion to express his anger.


Why are you so against LEO?

kensteele
05-14-2011, 08:53
Well, that's a better reply. Still not satisfactory. Still evasive and unwilling to consider, and still ad hominem; but, nonetheless, a better reply.

I don't have any, 'gang' behind me. I'm in this thing all by myself; I was alone over on the PAFOA; and I'm, still, mostly alone here, too. If someone happens to agree with me, that’s great; but, I’m not, ‘all over the board’ soliciting people to agree with me. Neither should you be so sensitive. Nobody's calling you names; only you can say whether or not the appellation applies.

As far as I’m concerned, it's merely an observation on my part. Heck, in this one week alone open carry zealots have insinuated that I am hate-filled, confrontational, rude, and argumentative - All ideations I would, also, use to describe those same open carry zealots who’ve taken such delight in berating me. Do you see me doing a, ‘crybaby act’.

If I, however, describe some of the people who attack me by an appropriate label - a shoe that fits - I immediately get accused of, 'name calling'. Why? Because when you can’t impugn the argument, the next best thing to do is impugn the man.

You know if you're going to make a target out of me then, hey, don't expect me to just stand there and not fire back. At least with me, I don't keep it up. With you open carry guys, you never stop! The insinuations and innuendos just keep on coming and coming. Nobody on your side of the argument seems to be happy until everyone who disagrees with them is beaten down.

(Apparently you haven't noticed my preference for dropping out of threads with OCZ's who have neither the good manners nor common sense to know when to shut up.)

Look, by wasting GT's bandwidth and re:posting everything I had to say - without even considering one single point - you were insulting me; and, not being a stupid man, you MUST have realized that you were being insulting, too. For my own part? I am perfectly willing to logically and objectively discuss modern day open carry in America's urban centers with anyone who's willing to make a: civil, cogent, and honest reply.

You OCZ guys are always the same; you just want to: insult, intimidate, and shut your opposition up. It needs to be pointed out that you are screwing around with,

THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE OTHER THAN YOURSELVES.

Frankly, I have more than sufficient justification to publicly debate what you're trying to do: With my rights, with law enforcement, and with all of the usual societal norms upon which each of us depends as we go about our daily urban lives.

As I go through my own day, I don't want to have to be second guessing what some guy with an exposed gun is up to? Neither do I want local law enforcement to be hamstrung by some deleterious modern interpretation of longstanding constitutional and federal laws – Laws which, in truth, all the states abridge in one way or another. A large part of these states, also, severely abridge a citizen's gun rights; and, may be expected to continue to do so.

It's not (really) a free country – Never was, never! In some respects, neither should it be. The Constitution - as great and noble as it is – was never, 'carved in stone' like, say, The Ten Commandments. Our Founding Fathers allowed this nation’s future legislators to have plenty of room for change. Why? BECAUSE they fully realized that change would be necessary to any (hopefully) progressive society.

Now, I don't know what kind of world you live in; but, mine can be a pretty dangerous place. I've got, at least, two drug dealers and a half dozen drug users within a mile of my home. In the past 4 years, alone, we've had a serious shooting; and I came within a fraction of a second of putting 3 rounds, COM, into a local meth dealer who thought it would be a great idea to dump his meth lab waste on the property. That's the kind of world I live in, here, in the Poconos. Do you really think that I'm going to, somehow, benefit if the local police adopt a new, 'live and let live' public relations policy for people whom they recognize to be carrying guns?

I'm not blind; I read the internet; I'm well aware that the OCZ crowd has recently begun to wrap themselves in the American flag and feign patriotism as a justification for their clearly antisocial behaviors. Come on! Get real. Why should urban: moms, dads, and their children have to tolerate this OC nonsense? Because Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington believed that people should be free to constructively use guns?

If George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson were to be resurrected tomorrow morning, not one of them would, so much as, recognize modern day America as the country they had founded - Wouldn't even recognize it! Times have changed. Daily life is a lot more stressful now, a lot more dangerous, and a whole lot less godly and more different than anything our Founding Fathers might ever have expected to occur.

Were I alive in their day and time, sure, I wouldn't care who did or didn't carry guns, too; but, in today's modern, largely urban, America - An America that's rife with violent crimes and horrific drug abuse - I very much care about who is carrying, 'a piece' and what he intends to do with it.

In the America I grew up in, cops didn't have to wear bulletproof vests, everybody went to church, or synagogue, and believed in God. Politicians weren't allowed to be whoremongers; and disgraced political leaders and their minions weren't rewarded by being given high paying jobs in the organized news media after they got out of jail.

We didn't have to carry guns; so the Second Amendment was pretty much moot and, at least in the Northeast, applied mainly to hunting. It wasn't until I was almost 50 years old that I felt the need to go armed in public; and, since those early days, the social situation that so worried me, then, has only gotten worse – much worse.

So, what's going on now? A bunch of nut case open carry zealots, full of misguided intentions and poorly thought-out ideas, are trying to blur the lines between, 'good and bad people’. They want to make it even more impossible for an average citizen to accurately assess his own immediate level of personal safety. Now you want the police to be curtailed from taking effective action against people who flaunt their guns in public because of what? The Second Amendment? An 1800’s state constitution? An act of the legislature?

Well, I don't! There’s no advantage to me from some OCZ guy terrorizing a bunch of kids playing soccer. That sort of antisocial personal behavior does me absolutely no good. According to your way of thinking, Jared Loughner could saunter down the street wearing his big Glock and 33 round magazine, smiling at people, and waving at cops on the way to his next mass execution.

According to your way of thinking, members of any New York City drug gang could arm themselves and walk down the street completely unchallenged by local law enforcement. If you say otherwise, then, you haven’t really considered the reality of unabridged open carry laws.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE GIVING ANY OF TODAY’S, 'GODLESS REPROBATES' THAT MUCH OF A, 'LICENSE TO KILL'.

I want police officers to be free to investigate, to question, and to assess individual motivation. Screw politics, and political technicalities! As the quality of daily life in America continues to deteriorate, as drug abuse, street crime, and irrational violent behaviors continue to rise, I want every personal advantage and assurance I can get that the guy next to me isn't wearing his gun - for all the world to see – because:

1. He's delusional, and thinks he's Wyatt Earp.
2. He's, ‘anatomically challenged’ and likes to excite women.
3. He's mad at the world and feels a compulsion to express his anger.
4. He's about to start shooting and wants to taunt me, first.
5. He's protecting those constitutional rights he believes I'm too lazy to support.
6. He owns a small gun smithery and has found a new way to attract customers to his establishment.
7. He's just plain socially maladjusted, craves negative attention, and has discovered a perfect, 'socially acceptable excuse' to cover his aberrant personal behavior(s).

Now, because I realize you're not much of a reader, I'm going to close this out with an invitation for anyone who feels more like addressing the argument rather than attacking the man to reply and tell me what benefits society-at-large and me-in-particular are going to enjoy from our home states opening their, 'legislative arms' for everybody to open carry loaded deadly weapons, and remain effectively free from police investigation without what the, 'Philadelphia lawyers' like to call, 'RAS'.

Go ahead, without wrapping yourself up in a bogus cloak of patriotism, tell me how me, my family, and my neighbors stand to benefit from the reality, the politics, of modern urban open carry.

I'll be honest, I didn't really all of this. I started out reading it and you made reference to my comment "all over the board" which didn't mean across the different GT forums. "all over the board" I meant it this (http://www.allwords.com/word-all+over+the+board.html) way.

Anyway, I stopped reading because it appears you are specifically addressing OC zealots and their hangups. I am not an OC zealot so basically nothing you said directly relates to me, so I stopped reading and jumped to the end. The last few paragraphs I completely disagree with but I'll let the OCers jump in and defend it since it appears that is who you have a big problem with. Good luck.

DanaT
05-14-2011, 08:54
Not really, it goes further than your narrow opinion. It, how someone is engaged or not engaged, actually depends on the totality of circumstances surrounding the person, the big picture, all the elements of the situation.

Yet you cant give an example of a "big picture" with the totality of all elements of the situaion that would warrant further investigation.

Again, what if someone calls 911 because they see a "man with a gun" walking down the street. Does that alone give cause?

Personally, I think this is the most likely cause of LEO making contact with an OC. I would say the I must agree with the article for the most part. For example, I live near mountains. If you see someone OC in the mountains, or small mountain towns, that is normal and only tree huggers hiking with their pooches off-leash give second looks. Take the exact same person OC in the mountains and move them to Boulder or Denver. Just walking around. That case would result in 911 ringing off the hook because someone saw a "man with a gun".

I also agree with the article that in many urban settings someone OC is trying to "get a rise" out of someone. Often when you try to get a rise out of LEO, they will grant you your wish...


-Dana

DanaT
05-14-2011, 08:56
No.:rofl:

You are correct. There is no reason to suspect a vette would be speeding. They are mostly used by bald, fat, middle age guys to drive really slow around high schools to pick up teenage girls.....

-Dana

kensteele
05-14-2011, 08:56
No, did not say any of that.What makes you think that the vast majority of the time that's not what happens?It goes to the totality of circumstances.I don't understand that, "leave...alone"? Are you saying I said that?

Yeah, we're not on the same page; clearly I have been unable to accurate address what you posted. Oh well, if I don't understand what's posted, I'll just keep reading and perhaps the conversation will evolve to where it's more clear what is being said, if not oh well, too. Not a problem because at this point there is no disagreement.

FireGuy
05-14-2011, 09:25
Just a couple quick comments so those with fanatical fringe beliefs can have more posting options -

The author of the article lives in Colorado. Open carry in CO is not unusual and rarely causes panic and tramatic fear except for those who are tourist or transplants from less free states ( such as Pennsylvania).

The belief that someone will be a danger to others because they are not conforming to your opinion of "normal behavior" is the main issue here. If the actions are not illegal then no reactions are warranted. Unfortunately there are often reactions from those members of the public who are uneducated, miseducated, or want to enforce their beliefs on others through any means possible - including the misuse of public resources.

So if you need a cause to rally behind, why not one that makes more sense than attempting to limit my freedoms? Go and do good by banning Dihydrogen Monoxide...

Booker
05-14-2011, 10:15
That would work if all circumstances surrounding the individual could be known without contact.

That's the problem, Russ. You assume that just because a person is carrying a gun, then they must be a criminal and need investigating.

If the person isn't doing anything, there's no reason for contact.

If open carry is legal and there's no RAS about a crime, the Police have no reason to contact that citizen.

If the Police do make contact just because the citizen is exercising his rights, but not presenting any RAS of another crime then, IMO, that cop is just acting on his bias and prejudices, which is wrong.

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2011, 12:42
I also agree with the article that in many urban settings someone OC is trying to "get a rise" out of someone. Often when you try to get a rise out of LEO, they will grant you your wish...


-Dana




The belief that someone will be a danger to others because they are not conforming to your opinion of "normal behavior" is the main issue here. If the actions are not illegal then no reactions are warranted. Unfortunately there are often reactions from those members of the public who are uneducated, miseducated, or want to enforce their beliefs on others through any means possible - including the misuse of public resources.



These are perfect examples of why people open carry. To change the paradigm of the public and governmental fear of firearms that has been ingrained into culture for decades by liberal thinking.




So if you need a cause to rally behind, why not one that makes more sense than attempting to limit my freedoms? Go and do good by banning Dihydrogen Monoxide...

Yup.

That's the problem, Russ. You assume that just because a person is carrying a gun, then they must be a criminal and need investigating.

If the person isn't doing anything, there's no reason for contact.

If open carry is legal and there's no RAS about a crime, the Police have no reason to contact that citizen.

If the Police do make contact just because the citizen is exercising his rights, but not presenting any RAS of another crime then, IMO, that cop is just acting on his bias and prejudices, which is wrong.

absolutely. everybody say it out loud. "shall not be infringed" getting detained and question by government actors for doing a lawful action that those very same government actors do every day, every where, without restriction is a pretty darn big infringement.

Not really, it goes further than your narrow opinion. It, how someone is engaged or not engaged, actually depends on the totality of circumstances surrounding the person, the big picture, all the elements of the situation.

No, it really doesn't, and there are scores of encounters posted on youtube that bear this out.

black man walking down the street in an affluent white neighborhood getting stopped by the government "just to make sure" is racial profiling and is illegal.

how is the government stopping someone lawfully carrying a firearm openly "just to make sure" any different?

if said open carrier starts shooting at people, then it becomes a matter of interest to the government. until then, they should be left alone.

HarleyGuy
05-14-2011, 14:45
First of all, I am not a proponent of Open Carry, even thought I have worked many years to promote a "shall issue" law that could be administered fairly to all law abiding citizens in our state.
I think we must support the open carry statue, if for no other reason than to prevent over zealous prosecutors (not that their are any) from prosecuting a person who accidentally allows the firearm to be displayed.

As I see this:
The REAL problem here, at least in part (as well as in other states) is created by the state legislature(s) and Governor(s).

For example, I doubt many people would actually choose to carry openly if they could leegally carry concealed.
In Michigan, IF you can legally own and possess a firearm, you can legally carry it openly, whereas you may be denied a Concealed Pistol License for many reasons, leaving open carry as the only possible means of self defense.

I've often compared open carry vs concealed carry to telling someone that you're a nudist to showing them:wow:

We all know (including cops) that there are many people carrying guns, legally as well as illegally, but displaying one publicly brings attentions to the carrier, which sometimes doesn't work out very well.
Some people have an extreme fear of firearms, even if they know they're in the possession of a law abiding person, and WE have to have some consideration for them too.
IT isn't impossible to conceal even a large handgun and I think it's the responsible thing to do.

Perhaps the Open Carry movement will force the legislature(s) to review their laws and make some needed improvement.

Arc's post was excellent!

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2011, 15:52
We all know (including cops) that there are many people carrying guns, legally as well as illegally, but displaying one publicly brings attentions to the carrier, which sometimes doesn't work out very well.
Some people have an extreme fear of firearms, even if they know they're in the possession of a law abiding person, and WE have to have some consideration for them too.
IT isn't impossible to conceal even a large handgun and I think it's the responsible thing to do.

Perhaps the Open Carry movement will force the legislature(s) to review their laws and make some needed improvement.



I heartily disagree. Curtailing our rights to show consideration to the ignorant throws butter on the slippery slope.

Everyone who owns a firearm should open carry once a week.

That's millions and millions of people.

lots of 911 calls will be made, and the government will wet its pants for a while, but they'll get used to it.

we need to train the sheep as well as the government and their servants to respect our rights.

Arc Angel
05-14-2011, 15:57
Why are you so against LEO?

I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine: WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?

(On my mother's side of the family I'm the grandson of a famous early twentieth century lawman! How about you?)

I've carried openly far more than concealed, and I've never had a problem with anyone. LEO's are respectful, and I've seen no difference in the way people act around me no matter how I'm carrying. Might be an Arizona thing, though. I feel for folks in less accepting areas of the country.

Daryl, I have no argument with anything you've said. All I'm going to point out is that, forget the exposed sidearm, you could get arrested in Philadelphia for just the way you dress. (JK!) ;)

I was quoting his full post so he couldn't edit it later, and possibly lose any of that awesomeness.

Typical of some of the responses I expected to receive. Is this your best dialectic? (Pretty lame!) My compliments on spelling, 'awesomeness' correctly, though.

Look, I guess you missed it; but, if I didn't want people to read my opinions and insight then I wouldn't have posted to a huge international, 'gun forum'. I thought you'd be smart enough to realize that! (Again, JK!) :)

DanaT
05-14-2011, 16:27
I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine: WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?

Nibiru.

I guess now that I have answered that its your turn....

But maybe you should go back and figure out what I was saying.....

-Dana

holesinpaper
05-14-2011, 19:20
Not really, it goes further than your narrow opinion. It, how someone is engaged or not engaged, actually depends on the totality of circumstances surrounding the person, the big picture, all the elements of the situation.

In my state, the key phrase is "in a manner that warrants alarm for the safety of another person."

Here are some police training bulletins on the issue. http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/open_carry_training_bulletins_washington.pdf

dogchild
05-14-2011, 21:27
Really?

I've carried guns since before I was old enough to vote and everybody in my family, young, old, male or female, owns and carries guns. But when I see some stranger walking around a store with a gun, my first thought is not a warm fuzzy feeling that he's a potential shooting buddy. If that's your first reaction, you'll need a lot more than a gun to protect yourself in the real world.

I'm just getting tired of minivan commandos who got their first gun last year, acting like they are saviors of gun ownership who are going to liberate everybody's minds with open carry. They're the worst enemies gun owners have right now.

I agree with you, If we push open carry far enough i think it will harm all gun owners, the general public doesn't have any idea how many people carry conceal weapons around them every day, but if everyone starts to OC and the general public turns against gun owners there will be a price to pay.

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2011, 21:39
I agree with you, If we push open carry far enough i think it will harm all gun owners, the general public doesn't have any idea how many people carry conceal weapons around them every day, but if everyone starts to OC and the general public turns against gun owners there will be a price to pay.


hmmmm... I need to come up with term that relates to open carry that's analogous to FUDD.

dogchild
05-14-2011, 22:00
I got 'a tell you!

This line of reasoning is like handing a carte blanche to every single gangbanger, serial killer, street thief, pedophile, or liquor store robber in America. I'm able to think of dozens (and dozens) of people I'd be very uncomfortable watching walk around town with a gun.

This idea some people have about, 'returning America to its colonial roots' and advertising the Constitution by wearing loaded handguns in public is really no better than antisocial pseudo-intellectual rationale. At its core this sort of specious reasoning seeks to excuse the mischievous and disruptive social behaviors of people who (rather clearly) care more about being publicly obstreperous than they do about getting along with society-at-large.

'Kissy-faced' publicity statements don't work with me - Not on either side of the law. Either way, public open carry is ill-considered. To my mind, it's only the final reality these behaviors are sure to produce that matters; and, people, ON A NATIONAL LEVEL that final reality can't be good.

It is every police officer's job to: protect, defend, and investigate - especially, against the unusual. What constructive social purpose does it serve for gang members to be able to move with impunity through police purview? The correct answer is, of course, none. How am I supposed to feel, 'safer' when a confrontational woman shows up at my kid's ball game openly carrying a handgun? The correct answer is, smart parents will immediately take their children home.

We've got a guy, here, in town. He wears scruffy, 'red neck' clothes; he's got a straggly beard, an unmistakable attitude, and a clearly visible handgun on his belt. I've run into him, like, twice - Once on the street and again at Wal-Mart. Each time he made me feel very strange.

What am I supposed to think? Is he harmless? (Maybe!) Is he socially maladjusted? (Definitely!) Is he a, 'ticking time bomb' just waiting to go off? (I don't know!) Exactly what is this fellow and his strange behavior doing to advance MY Second Amendment Rights? (Outside of his own head ...... absolutely nothing!)

Do I need to watch him? (Only a fool wouldn't.) Can I, or more correctly, should I trust him behind my back? (Behind your back, maybe; behind mine, never!) Is he wearing a legally owned sidearm; or is it something he stole? (How am I supposed to know whether he got the weapon legally, or illegally?) Is he angry; is he happy; is he sad; is he planning his last day on Planet Earth?

These are all questions that this individual's presence demands any rational, thinking person to consider - Particularly if that rational, thinking person happens to earn his living in law enforcement where everything out of the ordinary demands investigation.

Sure the Second Amendment is important - Very important. Ain't nothing wrong with public open carry, either - IF you're in a rural farm community where such behavior wouldn't be taken as out-of-place. The reality, however, is that this is the twenty-first century. We don't live in colonial America, anymore. George Washington isn't in the White House. Barack Obama is!

Our national society is not agrarian and community based. Instead, the world we live in is capitalistic, corporate, and almost 100% dependent upon the broad distribution of complex manufactured products. People like George Washington have been replaced by other people like George Hennard. Our big city streets are, literally, crawling with criminals of every strip. More than one of our college campuses has some sort of undiagnosed lunatic just waiting to reveal himself; e.g.: Whitman, Cho, and Loughner.

Then there are the millions, perhaps tens of millions, of illegal aliens living among us. Should these guys, also, be allowed to walk down our public streets, carrying weapons, and remain unchallenged - Should they? Why help dishonest, potentially dangerous people like these by doing things that allow them to hide behind the Second Amendment?

Personally, I consider it a significant, 'badge of social and personal trust' for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to allow me to go almost anywhere, (literally) 'armed to the teeth'. I'm neither mischievous, duplicitious, or socially discourteous enough to force other people to have to live with the barefaced reality of my deadly weapons.

Those weapons may, very well, be there; but, I'm not going to ruin anybody's afternoon in town by forcing them to wonder, 'What is that strange man doing with that gun?' Worse! 'What is that strange man GOING TO DO with that gun?' Even in Thomas Jefferson's day, somebody walking around with two horse pistols and a sword would have been considered to be either a soldier or a man going off to war.

Modern American society is already more than violent enough; why do anything in order to make it become, or even appear to be, even worse.

Agree 100% Wish i could have said it that well !!!!!!!

HarleyGuy
05-14-2011, 23:13
I heartily disagree. Curtailing our rights to show consideration to the ignorant throws butter on the slippery slope.

Everyone who owns a firearm should open carry once a week.

That's millions and millions of people.

lots of 911 calls will be made, and the government will wet its pants for a while, but they'll get used to it.

we need to train the sheep as well as the government and their servants to respect our rights.

I respect your position and your right to express your disagreement with mine.

I'm in total agreement with you that open carry is indeed legal (in many states) the disagreement, or the question is, is it right?

Do we really want people walking down city streets openly carrying pistols on their belts and long guns slung over their shoulders?
If you're at work and your wife or daughter calls and says "There's a man knocking on out door and he has guns!" Are you going to say, "Nothing wrong with that, just go open the door and ask him what he wants"?

Do we actually want police officers to turn their heads away from an individual who's openly carrying a gun without knowing anything about him or what he may be about to do?

This really comes down to a culture problem.
In rural locations open carry isn't a big issue because everyone, including cops knows everyone else, but in more populated communities and cities that experience more crime and violence it's a completely different story.

If the hope is that frequently displaying firearms via open carry will somehow desensitize the public and change that culture, I think it's a hopeless cause, that could very well have the opposite effect.

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2011, 23:39
I respect your position and your right to express your disagreement with mine.

I'm in total agreement with you that open carry is indeed legal (in many states) the disagreement, or the question is, is it right?

Do we really want people walking down city streets openly carrying pistols on their belts and long guns slung over their shoulders?
If you're at work and your wife or daughter calls and says "There's a man knocking on out door and he has guns!" Are you going to say, "Nothing wrong with that, just go open the door and ask him what he wants"?

Do we actually want police officers to turn their heads away from an individual who's openly carrying a gun without knowing anything about him or what he may be about to do?

This really comes down to a culture problem.
In rural locations open carry isn't a big issue because everyone, including cops knows everyone else, but in more populated communities and cities that experience more crime and violence it's a completely different story.

If the hope is that frequently displaying firearms via open carry will somehow desensitize the public and change that culture, I think it's a hopeless cause, that could very well have the opposite effect.


I see what you're saying, it is a valid concern.

and I wouldn't doubt there were some that said similar things when civil rights protesters started sitting at lunch counters and the front of buses.

the culture needs changing, and I cite Israel as proof that it is not a hopeless cause.

our rights are use em or lose em.

Arc Angel
05-15-2011, 07:35
...... the culture needs changing, and I cite Israel as proof that it is not a hopeless cause.

Israel? Did you say Israel! PM Glock Talk's, 'Lior' and ask him how free Israel is with sidearms - Go ahead; I dare you!

our rights are use em or lose em.

Fine! Then use them properly.

(THAT is all I'm saying! THAT is all I've been saying, too.)

sugarcreek
05-15-2011, 07:51
I welcome steady people who are polite in their demeanor and have a respectful relaxed confidence, to carry openly where they can. I hope there are more and more. I eschew button pusher swagger energy laden political agitators who DRIP awareness that they are PACKIN' doing the same. Open carry for me is really a no go. Maybe when I am retired, or older, like 50 or something, maybe on the 4th of July...

beforeobamabans
05-15-2011, 07:55
Interesting read for a Sunday morning. Yes, I read every post. I am always fascinated how a community that presumably has universal agreement on 2A can be so virulently divided by OC. I'll make a prediction: No one's mind will be changed by this thread!

I understand and appreciate both sides of the argument. I completely understand Arc's commentary especially regarding civil deportment. The analogy that comes to my mind is my 1A right to drop an F-bomb just about anywhere (except GT of course!) and my restraint in doing so out of respect for others who may be within earshot. OTOH, I truly respect Steve in AZ's commitment to OC. I think a lot of it has to do with the greatly differing cultures in our many states. Obviously a big difference between PA and AZ in their reaction to MWAG.

In my state, there is no question we are closer to PA than AZ in terms of public reaction to OC. We have rather odd laws here in Indiana. Our constitution is great. With 60 years perspective on the U.S. 2A, the writers of our state constitution chose to simplify and remove any doubt about the RKBA by stating:

"Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

And yet, we've had laws in place for many years that clearly "infringe" our own constitution. Here, one is required to obtain a county/state permit in order to remove a handgun from your personal or business property. To be forced to submit to fingerprinting and a background check by the state police certainly doesn't seem to fit within our constitution. Couple that with the obvious discrimination of the poor by charging fees and its a wonder this system hasn't been overturned by the courts. But, for better or worse, this is the law of the land here.

Interestingly, the permit doesn't distinguish between OC and CC. Both are legal with a valid permit. So, getting to the point of the thread, if I were to OC, I would expect the kind of public reaction Arc describes. I would expect the police to show up. I would expect the police to stop me and request to see my permit as well as identification to prove who I am. I would then expect them to let me go on about my business without further comment or action.

Because I do not wish to subject myself to this kind of attention and inspection, I choose to CC. However, I fully support legal OC.

Arc Angel
05-15-2011, 08:00
Interesting read for a Sunday morning. Yes, I read every post. I am always fascinated how a community that presumably has universal agreement on 2A can be so virulently divided by OC. I'll make a prediction: No one's mind will be changed by this thread!

I understand and appreciate both sides of the argument. I completely understand Arc's commentary especially regarding civil deportment. The analogy that comes to my mind is my 1A right to drop an F-bomb just about anywhere (except GT of course!) and my restraint in doing so out of respect for others who may be within earshot. OTOH, I truly respect Steve in AZ's commitment to OC. I think a lot of it has to do with the greatly differing cultures in our many states. Obviously a big difference between PA and AZ in their reaction to MWAG.

In my state, there is no question we are closer to PA than AZ in terms of public reaction to OC. We have rather odd laws here in Indiana. Our constitution is great. With 60 years perspective on the U.S. 2A, the writers of our state constitution chose to simplify and remove any doubt about the RKBA by stating:

"Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

And yet, we've had laws in place for many years that clearly "infringe" our own constitution. Here, one is required to obtain a county/state permit in order to remove a handgun from your personal or business property. To be forced to submit to fingerprinting and a background check by the state police certainly doesn't seem to fit within our constitution. Couple that with the obvious discrimination of the poor by charging fees and its a wonder this system hasnt been overturned by the courts. But, for better or worse, this is the law of the land here.

Interestingly, the permit doesn't distinguish between OC and CC. Both are legal with a valid permit. So, getting to the point of the thread, if I were to OC, I would expect the kind of public reaction Arc describes. I would expect the police to show up. I would expect the police to stop me and request to see my permit as well as identification to prove who I am. I would them expect them to let me go on about my business without further comment or action.

Nicely done! (Almost too sensible.) :thumbsup:

Mister_Beefy
05-15-2011, 21:04
Israel? Did you say Israel! PM Glock Talk's, 'Lior' and ask him how free Israel is with sidearms - Go ahead; I dare you!

I never said Israel was "freer" than the U.S. because of open carry.
but in Israel people don't panic and call SWAT when they see someone carrying a firearm. neither is that person stopped by police.

Fine! Then use them properly.

(THAT is all I'm saying! THAT is all I've been saying, too.)

that's the problem with OC in places like CA and Philly. "properly" in the eyes of the government is "never"

that's what OCers are trying to change.



I welcome steady people who are polite in their demeanor and have a respectful relaxed confidence, to carry openly where they can. I hope there are more and more.

we agree on that, and that's what I'm gonna do.

Interesting read for a Sunday morning. Yes, I read every post. I am always fascinated how a community that presumably has universal agreement on 2A can be so virulently divided by OC. I'll make a prediction: No one's mind will be changed by this thread!

I understand and appreciate both sides of the argument. I completely understand Arc's commentary especially regarding civil deportment. The analogy that comes to my mind is my 1A right to drop an F-bomb just about anywhere (except GT of course!) and my restraint in doing so out of respect for others who may be within earshot. OTOH, I truly respect Steve in AZ's commitment to OC. I think a lot of it has to do with the greatly differing cultures in our many states. Obviously a big difference between PA and AZ in their reaction to MWAG.

In my state, there is no question we are closer to PA than AZ in terms of public reaction to OC. We have rather odd laws here in Indiana. Our constitution is great. With 60 years perspective on the U.S. 2A, the writers of our state constitution chose to simplify and remove any doubt about the RKBA by stating:

"Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

And yet, we've had laws in place for many years that clearly "infringe" our own constitution. Here, one is required to obtain a county/state permit in order to remove a handgun from your personal or business property. To be forced to submit to fingerprinting and a background check by the state police certainly doesn't seem to fit within our constitution. Couple that with the obvious discrimination of the poor by charging fees and its a wonder this system hasn't been overturned by the courts. But, for better or worse, this is the law of the land here.

Interestingly, the permit doesn't distinguish between OC and CC. Both are legal with a valid permit. So, getting to the point of the thread, if I were to OC, I would expect the kind of public reaction Arc describes. I would expect the police to show up. I would expect the police to stop me and request to see my permit as well as identification to prove who I am. I would then expect them to let me go on about my business without further comment or action.

Because I do not wish to subject myself to this kind of attention and inspection, I choose to CC. However, I fully support legal OC.

Nicely done! (Almost too sensible.) :thumbsup:

I agree as well.

kenpoprofessor
05-16-2011, 16:01
All I can say is I'm so glad I live in AZ. You guys who think OCing give police a "reason" to talk to someone are out of your friggin' skulls with silly.:upeyes:

I OC regularly, and not once have I ever been approached by any Peace Officer for doing so. Not even a second glance that I could tell. You LE types on here are why "guilty before proving innocence" is a common theme. You intentionally force your "idea" of what you deem to be "lawful expression of rights" to whom you have contact with, and quite honestly, I think you need to rethink your position or remove your badge.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

srkr
05-16-2011, 16:23
After reading all these opinions, I can see both sides. Both sides in their own ways are logical. I personal have my beliefs and not one person here can chage that. This is a debatable topic with no clear winners. It should be put to a vote for state, eventhough the constitution gives us that right.

I have a CC permit in Texas. I am 100% for open carry. Before CC was passed in Texas, I heard the same arguments..."Wild West"..."Shoot outs in the mall"..."Innocent people getting killed or shot"..Fire..Fire!!! "Run for your lives!!!"..

You know what? Didn't happen. Everything is just like it was before. Safer IMO. It worked. Open carry I hear the same mambo jambo ..."What if's"....I'm here to tell you....WON'T happen. Yes there will be an adjustment period,..small one at that. Then it will be over,..once people know that it's ok. Everything takes an adjusting to.

Some of you don't see it that way. Fine.

When it comes to a vote, the people will decide and whatever the majority agrres to. I'm fine with. Until then I will vote for my Represenative who supports open carry here in Texas.

fmfdocglock
05-16-2011, 16:53
The discussion thus far illustrates what a grey area this is.

Here near Philly (not even in Philly) someone OCing most likely means a robbery or attempted murder.

Even if OC is legal, is it a good idea for an LEO not to make contact?

Is there liability down the road if a murder was then committed and the LEO contact was not made because OC was legal?

Carrying in CO, where I used to live, is very different.

What is "good sense"?

Not easily definable, IMO.

kenpoprofessor
05-16-2011, 17:32
The discussion thus far illustrates what a grey area this is.

Here near Philly (not even in Philly) someone OCing most likely means a robbery or attempted murder.

Even if OC is legal, is it a good idea for an LEO not to make contact?

Is there liability down the road if a murder was then committed and the LEO contact was not made because OC was legal?

Carrying in CO, where I used to live, is very different.

What is "good sense"?

Not easily definable, IMO.

"Good sense"? Like the Brady Campaign wants common sense gun laws?

The beauty of a right is, it's not something you have to ask "permission" for. It's obvious to me that much like a driver's license, there's many here that would say it's just fine to require a license to keep and bear. Shame really. :shocked:

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

deciple
05-16-2011, 18:10
I don't trust another man regardless if he's wearing a badge or pantyhose over his head. I especially don't trust a man that believes that he has THE RIGHT to render me completely powerless. My safety is just as important as an officers or any other person's, I don't like being put into defenseless situations for no reason. Every time I read one of these threads it just reminds me how much I believe government needs to let people live their lives. The more restrictions that are set in place the worse everything gets. I don't believe you should be questioned for simply having a gun on your person. Acting sporadically/uncontrollably warrants further investigation, not just having a gun on you. Everyone acts like guns are dangerous, but they seem to forget that I can do just as much harm to people by swinging a sock full of rocks around. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Me having a gun on my hip doesn't make me any more likely to shoot you for cutting me in line at wal mart.

beforeobamabans
05-17-2011, 19:25
I read a lot about "rights" and what people think they are. What really impacts each of us is "The Law" and most people don't know what it is and frankly, it is very difficult to educate oneself on the current state of the law. The law is not what is written in a constitution or a statute. The functioning present-day law is the case law that has followed. If you don't know the case law of a particular statute, then you really know nothing about it's application and how it might effect you should you ever be under its jurisdiction.

rudeboy3
05-17-2011, 22:42
Well, that's a better reply. Still not satisfactory. Still evasive and unwilling to consider, and still ad hominem; but, nonetheless, a better reply.

I don't have any, 'gang' behind me. I'm in this thing all by myself; I was alone over on the PAFOA; and I'm, still, mostly alone here, too. If someone happens to agree with me, that’s great; but, I’m not, ‘all over the board’ soliciting people to agree with me. Neither should you be so sensitive. Nobody's calling you names; only you can say whether or not the appellation applies.

As far as I’m concerned, it's merely an observation on my part. Heck, in this one week alone open carry zealots have insinuated that I am hate-filled, confrontational, rude, and argumentative - All ideations I would, also, use to describe those same open carry zealots who’ve taken such delight in berating me. Do you see me doing a, ‘crybaby act’.

If I, however, describe some of the people who attack me by an appropriate label - a shoe that fits - I immediately get accused of, 'name calling'. Why? Because when you can’t impugn the argument, the next best thing to do is impugn the man.

You know if you're going to make a target out of me then, hey, don't expect me to just stand there and not fire back. At least with me, I don't keep it up. With you open carry guys, you never stop! The insinuations and innuendos just keep on coming and coming. Nobody on your side of the argument seems to be happy until everyone who disagrees with them is beaten down.

(Apparently you haven't noticed my preference for dropping out of threads with OCZ's who have neither the good manners nor common sense to know when to shut up.)

Look, by wasting GT's bandwidth and re:posting everything I had to say - without even considering one single point - you were insulting me; and, not being a stupid man, you MUST have realized that you were being insulting, too. For my own part? I am perfectly willing to logically and objectively discuss modern day open carry in America's urban centers with anyone who's willing to make a: civil, cogent, and honest reply.

You OCZ guys are always the same; you just want to: insult, intimidate, and shut your opposition up. It needs to be pointed out that you are screwing around with,

THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE OTHER THAN YOURSELVES.

Frankly, I have more than sufficient justification to publicly debate what you're trying to do: With my rights, with law enforcement, and with all of the usual societal norms upon which each of us depends as we go about our daily urban lives.

As I go through my own day, I don't want to have to be second guessing what some guy with an exposed gun is up to? Neither do I want local law enforcement to be hamstrung by some deleterious modern interpretation of longstanding constitutional and federal laws – Laws which, in truth, all the states abridge in one way or another. A large part of these states, also, severely abridge a citizen's gun rights; and, may be expected to continue to do so.

It's not (really) a free country – Never was, never! In some respects, neither should it be. The Constitution - as great and noble as it is – was never, 'carved in stone' like, say, The Ten Commandments. Our Founding Fathers allowed this nation’s future legislators to have plenty of room for change. Why? BECAUSE they fully realized that change would be necessary to any (hopefully) progressive society.

Now, I don't know what kind of world you live in; but, mine can be a pretty dangerous place. I've got, at least, two drug dealers and a half dozen drug users within a mile of my home. In the past 4 years, alone, we've had a serious shooting; and I came within a fraction of a second of putting 3 rounds, COM, into a local meth dealer who thought it would be a great idea to dump his meth lab waste on the property. That's the kind of world I live in, here, in the Poconos. Do you really think that I'm going to, somehow, benefit if the local police adopt a new, 'live and let live' public relations policy for people whom they recognize to be carrying guns?

I'm not blind; I read the internet; I'm well aware that the OCZ crowd has recently begun to wrap themselves in the American flag and feign patriotism as a justification for their clearly antisocial behaviors. Come on! Get real. Why should urban: moms, dads, and their children have to tolerate this OC nonsense? Because Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington believed that people should be free to constructively use guns?

If George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson were to be resurrected tomorrow morning, not one of them would, so much as, recognize modern day America as the country they had founded - Wouldn't even recognize it! Times have changed. Daily life is a lot more stressful now, a lot more dangerous, and a whole lot less godly and more different than anything our Founding Fathers might ever have expected to occur.

Were I alive in their day and time, sure, I wouldn't care who did or didn't carry guns, too; but, in today's modern, largely urban, America - An America that's rife with violent crimes and horrific drug abuse - I very much care about who is carrying, 'a piece' and what he intends to do with it.

In the America I grew up in, cops didn't have to wear bulletproof vests, everybody went to church, or synagogue, and believed in God. Politicians weren't allowed to be whoremongers; and disgraced political leaders and their minions weren't rewarded by being given high paying jobs in the organized news media after they got out of jail.

We didn't have to carry guns; so the Second Amendment was pretty much moot and, at least in the Northeast, applied mainly to hunting. It wasn't until I was almost 50 years old that I felt the need to go armed in public; and, since those early days, the social situation that so worried me, then, has only gotten worse – much worse.

So, what's going on now? A bunch of nut case open carry zealots, full of misguided intentions and poorly thought-out ideas, are trying to blur the lines between, 'good and bad people’. They want to make it even more impossible for an average citizen to accurately assess his own immediate level of personal safety. Now you want the police to be curtailed from taking effective action against people who flaunt their guns in public because of what? The Second Amendment? An 1800’s state constitution? An act of the legislature?

Well, I don't! There’s no advantage to me from some OCZ guy terrorizing a bunch of kids playing soccer. That sort of antisocial personal behavior does me absolutely no good. According to your way of thinking, Jared Loughner could saunter down the street wearing his big Glock and 33 round magazine, smiling at people, and waving at cops on the way to his next mass execution.

According to your way of thinking, members of any New York City drug gang could arm themselves and walk down the street completely unchallenged by local law enforcement. If you say otherwise, then, you haven’t really considered the reality of unabridged open carry laws.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE GIVING ANY OF TODAY’S, 'GODLESS REPROBATES' THAT MUCH OF A, 'LICENSE TO KILL'.

I want police officers to be free to investigate, to question, and to assess individual motivation. Screw politics, and political technicalities! As the quality of daily life in America continues to deteriorate, as drug abuse, street crime, and irrational violent behaviors continue to rise, I want every personal advantage and assurance I can get that the guy next to me isn't wearing his gun - for all the world to see – because:

1. He's delusional, and thinks he's Wyatt Earp.
2. He's, ‘anatomically challenged’ and likes to excite women.
3. He's mad at the world and feels a compulsion to express his anger.
4. He's about to start shooting and wants to taunt me, first.
5. He's protecting those constitutional rights he believes I'm too lazy to support.
6. He owns a small gun smithery and has found a new way to attract customers to his establishment.
7. He's just plain socially maladjusted, craves negative attention, and has discovered a perfect, 'socially acceptable excuse' to cover his aberrant personal behavior(s).

Now, because I realize you're not much of a reader, I'm going to close this out with an invitation for anyone who feels more like addressing the argument rather than attacking the man to reply and tell me what benefits society-at-large and me-in-particular are going to enjoy from our home states opening their, 'legislative arms' for everybody to open carry loaded deadly weapons, and remain effectively free from police investigation without what the, 'Philadelphia lawyers' like to call, 'RAS'.

Go ahead, without wrapping yourself up in a bogus cloak of patriotism, tell me how me, my family, and my neighbors stand to benefit from the reality, the politics, of modern urban open carry.
http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff430/BWhite4750/7850039.jpg