Special zippers on jackets (that also let in cold and wind) or tucking jackets (again, colder that way; and it looks ridiculous) ARE DIFFICULTIES that should not be required.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
USA Carry Hating on Open Carry
- Thread starter acmariner99
- Start date
Special zippers on jackets (that also let in cold and wind) or tucking jackets (again, colder that way; and it looks ridiculous) ARE DIFFICULTIES that should not be required.
Aknazer
Regular Member
It isn't that the limits don't infringe upon the right, it's that the infringement has a narrow and compelling interest to the whole of society while being the least burdensome to the individual. It is still an infringement however.
I would say that it still has the potential to limit your ability to defend yourself. For example, if gun grabs magically did become common-place like people claim will happen should you OC (times can change and it "could" happen; especially as outlined in my second example), then being limited or unable to have a concealed BUG has just affected your ability to defend against such attacks. Or if the government were to fall into such a state of corruption that they are targeting OCers, being unable to CC has restricted their ability to lawfully defend against such targeting. Or if one is carrying in an excessively crowded area and would be able to reasonably employ the tool (say crowded subway) they might wish to conceal in order to prevent a potential criminal from trying to take advantage of the crowded situation.
Overall I guess it really just comes down to the fact that I'm yet to see a compelling reason/need to restrict concealed carry and as such to me it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. And even should someone come up with a reason/need to restrict it they would still need to show how the restricting of concealing a weapon (not just a firearm) is the least restrictive method of achieving said goal, and that said infringement will have any effect in regards to reaching the goal. At least with in-the-hand carry I can see the safety issues in regards to improper handling (ie NDs), accidental sweeping of people, having to put it down (potentially sweeping someone or pointing it at them once laid down/picking it back up) in to conduct almost any business, and how by infringing upon the right to bear arms it greatly enhances the overall safety of everyone else. The infringement upon the right is for a very specific purpose and is very narrow in its targeting in order to achieve said purpose while still allowing the exercise of the right.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Ohhhh for Christ's sake here we go with that gun grab BS again. Every time the CC worshipers get their panties in a wad they make this ignorant and wild claim. Now that it has clearly been disproved, then someone decides to claim that it will suddenly become the norm. Hogwash!
And having to show need is a argument used by anti gunners. There is no need to show need, CC is not protected under 2A because it is NOT bearing arms. The only time OC can be unrestricted is when OC IS restricted, and restricting OC IS unconstitutional. That is what we should be fighting for, the constitutional carry of firearms openly, ya know "bear arms shall not be infringed".
Is CC more convenient, yes sometimes, sometimes not. But it clearly is not covered. Technically anyone can carry concealed as long as they do it properly and are not involved in any behavior that creates RAS. The Courts have just recently ruled this is the case in NC. I believe the case is Black V State. The problem is, most of the time it is really very hard to properly conceal, unless carrying a mouse gun. And if most people who can discern you are carrying even though there is a piece of cloth over your weapon, where is the need?
And having to show need is a argument used by anti gunners. There is no need to show need, CC is not protected under 2A because it is NOT bearing arms. The only time OC can be unrestricted is when OC IS restricted, and restricting OC IS unconstitutional. That is what we should be fighting for, the constitutional carry of firearms openly, ya know "bear arms shall not be infringed".
Is CC more convenient, yes sometimes, sometimes not. But it clearly is not covered. Technically anyone can carry concealed as long as they do it properly and are not involved in any behavior that creates RAS. The Courts have just recently ruled this is the case in NC. I believe the case is Black V State. The problem is, most of the time it is really very hard to properly conceal, unless carrying a mouse gun. And if most people who can discern you are carrying even though there is a piece of cloth over your weapon, where is the need?
Last edited:
Both of them said it better than I can. Well done! :banana:
[Doesn't this site have a beer icon???]
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Wearing jackets at all during winter are difficulties which should not be required.
(shrug)
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Not really, the military OC, and still does in the winter. IMO it is the only option that makes sense. If you can't access your gun when you need it, well you just might as well wear a sign that says victim.
Aknazer
Regular Member
No, it isn't the same argument as used by the antis. The antis use the argument of showing need to exercise the right, I'm talking about the government having to show need to infringe upon the right (you know, like libel laws or not being able to shout "fire" in a crowded space and how such actions aren't protected under the 1A). Also I would like to see where you get your definition that "bear" means to "openly wear" and not simply to wear them. After all, if one "bears" the physical scars of an attack that doesn't have to mean that they are visible; simply that they are upon their person.
I've tried looking for a definition of "bear" that requires the thing to be visible, but am yet to find it. I did find that bear came from the word "beran" which did mean to wear and that is the closest I've come. But still nothing that requires it to be visible. Which would also give more weight to the banning of in-the-hand carry as that isn't "wearing" the weapon.
What the military does is rarely an example to the rest of us of efficiency or, often, even common sense.
If I have my 1911 in a belt holster, and need to frequently put on and off a jacket as I go from indoors to outdoors, or in and out of vehicles, there is a significant difficulty in doing so in an efficient manner unless I just conceal the firearm while the jacket is on. Let's ignore all the speed-shooting BS, and the military uniformity and ceremonial dress BS, and admit I have a point whether it is valid in all circumstances or not.
When I am purposely doing OC on a cold day/night, I often wear my Vaquero because the holster rides low enough that my leather jacket won't conceal it. I cannot do that with my normal belt holsters. And a low-riding cowboy holster is not nearly as out-of-the-way as a high-ride belt holster.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what point you are making anymore, which is odd because I usually agree with you in most threads.
Being cold is more difficult to me than wearing a jacket, which I often don't find comfortable at all. But shouldn't all this be MY CHOICE as to how to handle my difficulties?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I can't admit what I do not agree with. I am in agreement with others that CC is not protected under the 2A when the option of OC is present. Yes there are always inconveniences in life, and adjustments. I do not believe the 2A was written to accommodate inconvenience. There are a lot of options to OC while wearing a coat. They do make low riding holsters in different forms, and different guns, they also make Ike type coats that are cut higher. My belt will fit both over my coat and without the coat, so there is no compromise for me. Usually the weather here I do not need a coat going from the car to the business, I normally dress warmly, and the heater in the car works great. If it gets cold enough I cannot go a short distance I make adjustments once at my destination.
This is a strawman.
I never said CC was/is a protected right. I opined that OC can be more difficult in certain circumstances and that that should be used to give merit to consideration of recognizing that CC should be as protected.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Last edited:
Aknazer
Regular Member
You do understand what the word "should" means right? I see nothing that says that Mac thinks it "is" currently protected, simply that he thinks it "should" be protected. In both of the quotes that you used, Mac had specifically used the word "should." Oh and still waiting on that definition that states "bear" requires it to be in the open and not simply worn upon one's person.
Are you that bad in English? Am I wasting my time?
Does "should be" some how equal "is"?
If you are laughing your ass off, you have a serious problem with the English language, and with courtesy. The latter I had long suspected, but the former is not usual for you.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Not really making much of a point. Just that, the more I OC, the less I feel like winter is a much of a difficulty. I used to think I'd CC in the winter with constitutional carry, now I can't imagine ever CCing.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I didn't lambast you, I just laughed and posted YOUR own posts. If that is lambasting I guess you did it to yourself. You can't even comprehend your own posting it seems. Maybe you should check your emotion at the door.
I am in complete agreement, there are many options for OC in the winter, by utilizing different holster and coat styles. If a person can afford a safe full of guns, they should be able to afford a few coats and a few holsters.
Last edited:
Here we go again. I did not say you DID lambast me. I showed you where you SHOULD have lambasted me instead of wrongly attacking a strawman. But I keep forgetting you don't know the meaning of that word. My emotions are just fine. It's my vocabulary I should somehow truncate for you.
See, this I can agree with, because I am looking at exactly what you are saying and not imputing inferences.
If I were making implications, I would criticize you because, apparently, you believe it is the government's job to regulate my wardrobe.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
You seriously have some issues with comprehension. If you are not suggesting something why imply it. What kind of nut are you, can't you make a post without contradicting yourself. You are the one that needs to go back to school, you post like a child. You sound more like BL with each subsequent post. Instead of boring us with your emotions why not stick to facts.