USA Carry Hating on Open Carry

[NoTolerance]

Please provide credible evidence that a criminal "got the drop" on an OCer in the US

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html

It's happened. Once. Percentage-wise, it doesn't even merit a mention, but you did ask.

 

[marshaul]

Please provide credible evidence that a criminal "got the drop" on an OCer in the US

Happened just a couple weeks back, in LA:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rmed-by-Whole-Foods-store-cop-Sgt-Wade-Boswer

 

[Z1P2]

There ya go. Security is all about layers, right? Having an additional decoy/deterant layer couldn't be a bad thing, right?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Happened just a couple weeks back, in LA:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rmed-by-Whole-Foods-store-cop-Sgt-Wade-Boswer

I think he meant somebody other than a criminal LEO.

 

[marshaul]

I think he meant somebody other than a criminal LEO.

Why? How does it make any difference at all?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Why? How does it make any difference at all?

IMO, yes it does. Criminals, such as armed robbers are not going to feel compelled to flex their muscles attacking a citizen with a gun. Where it happens a lot with some police officers. Some police are mistaken when they think the law backs them up to break the law, street criminals know better.

 

[marshaul]

IMO, yes it does. Criminals, such as armed robbers are not going to feel compelled to flex their muscles attacking a citizen with a gun. Where it happens a lot with some police officers. Some police are mistaken when they think the law backs them up to break the law, street criminals know better.

OK, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous for the OCer.

 

[WalkingWolf]

OK, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous for the OCer.

I don't think that was his point. There are very few cases of street thugs taking weapons from LACs, disproving the theory that the gun will be taken away or the OCer would be the first one shot in a crime. Which is the typical Blah Blah Blah from many CCers who are anti OC.

 

[Packer fan]

One reason I no longer frequent CC sights, it usually turns out to be an OC bashing session or threads with people quoting the "experts" with no facts just to show how intelligent they are.

I know for fact OC is a deterrent; my wife has experienced it herself, but does that mean it will stop all criminals, no; plus, what about the article in the USCCA that documented two OCers in Ga in the Waffle House deterring a hold up without them even knowing it.

I understand the risk involved as I choose to OC. I understand that it's not a magic forcefield that will protect me from harm, but it does help, and it should be my choice.
IMHO the benefits out way the risk.

Also, I have yet to have a CC "expert" tell me at what point the element of surprise is an advantage: before, during, or after the attack. I'd rather not be attacked.

If a person was going to attack you while OC they would've attacked you CC too.

 

[mtbinva]

I've only found a handful (literally, about 5) of news stories about OCers being disarmed by common street criminals. More often the problem comes from LEO, and more often than that the criminal(s) see the pistol & don't even start the attack.


+1 I'm glad someone else has figured that out!


That is exactly what our chief of police has said in the media he instructed his "troops" to do:
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it"
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/43347632.html
(about 3/4 of the way down)

I realize there are plenty of sensible, sane places in the USA where LEO take their oaths seriously & won't randomly attack a citizen. Wish I lived in one.
To make this more bipolar, our Sheriff is the one who has created such a stir by telling citizens they need to participate in their own defense & calling 911 while begging for mercy from the criminal is not their best option.

This part of the article was enough to give me reasonable doubt to the assertion that LE would support the OC and the rights as it pertains to each jurisdiction regardless of leadership.

Cudahy Detective Dala Milosavljevic said Van Hollen's advisory creates a new atmosphere for police.

"It's going to be like the Wild West where they have the holster strapped down to their leg," he said.

But Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm said Van Hollen's memorandum changes very little for prosecutors, and few citizens are likely to begin openly carrying firearms as a result.

In a practical sense, there are limited locations where it would be legal, given statutory prohibitions against carrying firearms in businesses with liquor licenses, in school zones or public buildings, he said.

"I do have faith that the vast majority of people are going to continue to use the same sound judgment and not openly display or carry firearms in a public setting," Chisholm said.

While it all sounds well and good, there are far too many instances and LE ON RECORD with the same stance as outlined in this article. I will say thanks for being one of the LE that supports the Second Amendment, but, after the video and articles such as this, I’m going to respectfully ask that you at least understand where all of the skepticism stems from.

This is directed at the LE’s replying to this thread.

 

[minarchist]

Carry is the Right. Concealment of the fact that you are carrying is not protected as an enumerated right, and, based on State law, can be considered a privilege.

I know it is a fine line, and hard for some to wrap their minds around, but CC is two separable behaviors, carry (the Right) and concealment (not a right).

If the State does not stop me from carrying, I couldn't care less that they won't allow me to put fabric over that which I carry without taking their stupid courses, paying their stupid fees, and getting their stupid permission slip.

One of the problems of fighting for CC is that there is often a price to pay for the real Right, as happened in Ohio. Yeah, they now have licensed CC, but some of the exercise of the RKBA disappeared during that magic trick.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Carry is a right, period, and any limitation on the manner of carrying is, by definition, an infringement on the right to carry.

 

[bushwacker]

There's so much truth in that. I don't care how people carry. I prefer OC but am so sick of people focusing on conceal as the way to go.

I dan't like people that cc when they are allowed to open carry.I have been saying for years that if you don't open carry when you can, then you are just helping the anti gunners keep the population brainwashed into thinking that only the fuzz and military are allowed to carry,thats why they spaz out now when they see us ocing . Yeah you have the right to not carry but the way the 2a is in need of defense , with me its not the, to carry or not to carry , but its more plain and simple ,cut and dry, gun control or 2A...which side you pick.

 

[minarchist]

I dan't like people that cc when they are allowed to open carry.I have been saying for years that if you don't open carry when you can, then you are just helping the anti gunners keep the population brainwashed into thinking that only the fuzz and military are allowed to carry,thats why they spaz out now when they see us ocing . Yeah you have the right to not carry but the way the 2a is in need of defense , with me its not the, to carry or not to carry , but its more plain and simple ,cut and dry, gun control or 2A...which side you pick.

Excellent post. Here is how I put it: the educational system has a bully pulpit with children, and they have been brainwashing children to dislike guns for decades. When I was a kid, and we played cops and robbers, we were merely scolded. Now children are being suspended. The mainstream media and entertainment industry are allies in this brainwashing effort. Therefore, due to the enormous resources that the gun grabbers pour into screwing us over, I am certainly going to use every means at my disposal to persuade people in the opposite direction. That is only fair.

 

[marshaul]

I dan't like people that cc when they are allowed to open carry.I have been saying for years that if you don't open carry when you can, then you are just helping the anti gunners keep the population brainwashed into thinking that only the fuzz and military are allowed to carry,thats why they spaz out now when they see us ocing . Yeah you have the right to not carry but the way the 2a is in need of defense , with me its not the, to carry or not to carry , but its more plain and simple ,cut and dry, gun control or 2A...which side you pick.

I basically agree completely.

Except – and I forgive you for saying this because you live in a no-OC state – people definitely don't "spaz out" when they see an OCer.

 

[eye95]

Carry is a right, period, and any limitation on the manner of carrying is, by definition, an infringement on the right to carry.

Possibly by your definition.

Laws that prohibit, limit, or license concealment do not stop (or make more difficult) the actual act of carry--which is what the 2A protects.

 

[MAC702]

Possibly by your definition.

Laws that prohibit, limit, or license concealment do not stop (or make more difficult) the actual act of carry--which is what the 2A protects.

In the summer I would agree with you. But yes, it IS DIFFICULT to not conceal in the winter.

 

[eye95]

Check out page B-2 of the January 30th Columbus Dispatch for a photo of effective unconcealed carry on a cold day.

 

[marshaul]

In the summer I would agree with you. But yes, it IS DIFFICULT to not conceal in the winter.

Nah. I have a jacket with special zippers on the sides for a holster/gun. If I'm too lazy to use that, I can just tuck my jacket behind the gun.

(shrug)

 

[Aknazer]

Possibly by your definition.

Laws that prohibit, limit, or license concealment do not stop (or make more difficult) the actual act of carry--which is what the 2A protects.

Ahh but they do limit HOW you may carry (bear) which is an encroachment on your ability to carry in the same manner that limiting/prohibiting the ownership (keep) of certain guns encroaches upon your right.

Of course taken to the extreme this would mean that one "should" be able to carry their weapon in their hand down the street. But I think a ban on such types of carry would pass muster for even strict scrutiny. And it is because of what was acceptable in years past (only criminals hid their weapons) for why I think the banning/limiting of CC used to pass strict scrutiny and was viewed as an acceptable infringement upon the right. Though in today's world where states have pushed people to CC I would say that they actually have shot theirself in the foot in this regard as I think there is no longer a compelling governmental interest to infringe upon the the ability to carry concealed.

 

[eye95]

You clearly admit that some limits on how one carries would pass strict scrutiny, therefore limiting how one carries does not necessarily infringe on the Right. Clearly there must be a line. The question is where to draw it.

The answer is simple. If the limitation inhibits the underlying right, the right to defend oneself, then the limitation is an infringement. If the limitation does not inhibit the underlying right, then it does not infringe.

Examples: A limitation on how one carries, requiring that the gun be unloaded when carried in a car by an unlicensed person (such as Ohio's law) would make the use of the firearm for defense near impossible. That law is an infringement and should be declared unconstitutional. A limitation that one may not cover the firearm when carrying it in public actually ensures greater accessibility to the firearm, so the underlying right is not inhibited; it is enhanced. That restriction is not an infringement.