Can you open carry a weapon.

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Joe, you are missing the point.

I do agree with the fact a large number of crimes are prevented by people who are armed and many of those are concealed and understand that the concealment gives them a step up on the criminal. Many criminals who understand not to mess with someone with a gun is in the majority (as proven in Florida) but it isn't the majority I'm talking about, it is that minority who seem to do the most damage and have no regret or conscience about pulling the trigger.

IT IS a common sense issue. You become a target to a number of people who view you are a threat when they see the weapon, at that point it is not as a deterrent. When you confront someone who is say on PCP or needs a fix, they don't have the faculties to process what could be a civilian or a cop and only see someone carrying as a threat.

Think about it this way, how many cops does it take to bring down someone on PCP?

I saw this happen a few weeks ago, there were 5 cops trying to wrestle one guy down (he didn't get taken down until 4 of them jumped on him) and 2 were on the side, 1 with a taser. It took 15 minutes to get him down and another 5 to secure him. After they got him in the car he kicked the cop car door open and tried to get away which it took 3 of them to tackle him and he went into the sheriffs panel van.

My point is simple, this has nothing to do with rights or the fact I feel open carry is a good thing (never said it was a bad thing except for them trucker people) ... you can't predict the behavior of someone who you don't know nor protect yourself if you are in a bad situation with that type of a person.
 

Dreamer

Administrator Emeritus
Charter Member
Offline
I grew up in an area where most people had shotguns in their back window gunrack (yup, bonafide country boys)

PC crowd would have a heart attack, or more likely, it would get stolen now.

Dale

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Offline
In the early to mid 70's at least once a week I was paid to install those "gun racks" in the back window of pickup trucks...in most cases the rifles or shotguns were there on the front seat for me to "fit" the racks to the guns and position them right....
 

ChrisGa23

Expert Expediter
Offline
I see your point layoutshooter but I still feel if someone came into a store gun drawn yelling hands up and see's someone with a gun chances are he is gonna do one of a few things. Some may turn and run firing their gun, some might aim and try shoot you, or just plainly take off running. Maybe some will maybe some wont no one will never know what someone will do especially someone on drugs and desperate. I wouldnt take that chance by open carrying. I dont see the point of doing so out in public your just asking for trouble by others and police.


But now on the video. That guy is crazy. I know he is exercising his rights and thats fine and people should do so but to make things go by smoother why not hand over your ID and permit and I bet with in 3-5 minutes you will be free to go.
 

BigRed32771

Expert Expediter
Offline
I talked to a police officer once about this and, while he agreed that open carry was indeed permissible, all it would take would be one complaint and he would have to cite me on a "disturbing the peace" complaint. Open carry also does not give you the right to walk into places with posted "no gun" signs.

I am planning on getting a holster for open carry especially around my property, and a smaller gun for concealed carry when that is appropriate. I love my Taurus "Judge" but it is a bit big to try to conceal.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
My wife and I have revolvers for carry guns. I have a Ruger SP101 .357. My wife a Lady Smith, .357. We use Hornady self defense rounds.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I wouldnt take that chance by open carrying. I dont see the point of doing so out in public your just asking for trouble by others and police.
Maybe the police could learn to obey the Bill of Rights and then there would be no trouble, would there?


But now on the video. That guy is crazy. I know he is exercising his rights and thats fine and people should do so but to make things go by smoother why not hand over your ID and permit and I bet with in 3-5 minutes you will be free to go.
Sure, if you want your rights to disappear. We see it already; people let the cops search them without a warrant and then people start saying, "Well, if you've got nothing to hide..." Why should I be detained 3-5 minutes for nothing?

Here's one reason why you shouldn't accept that: it doesn't stop there. I lived in an open carry state, and then the city instituted a carry permit. Cops would then jack up anybody they saw with a gun. Now, it wasn't , just a "Hey, buddy, got a permit for that?" No, it doesn't stop there. If that's as far as it went, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. You carry it in your pocket, produce it on demand, he compares your face with the face on the card, apologizes for inconveniencing you, and you're on your way in about 10 seconds.

But that's not how it happens. He'll want your driver's license, and he'll detain you while he calls in your data to check for wants and warrants, etc. Some jurisdictions may even want to append something to your history that shows that you carry a gun, and now every time you have any contact with the police, they're calling for backup. And somewhere, there's an actual crime occurring, and the cops are busy busting your nads over exercising your constitutional rights.

In that same city, I was a guard at section 8 housing. Really bad places where the cops wouldn't go without backup. Usually, we wore uniforms, but sometimes we'd wear plain clothes. On one such day, I had some business down at what Arlo Guthrie would call "the police officer station." I think it was to pick up a copy of a police report or something. I had my badge clipped to my belt on the same side as my holster. It was a gold star like a sheriff's deputy's, but it didn't closely resemble an actual deputy's star. I parked out front and walked toward the door, and a cop who had apparently just gotten off duty and was also in street clothes saw me and my gun, in its holster, visible from three sides like it specified in the law. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw him kind of go on alert and start shadowing me. I didn't pay him any mind. It would have probably startled him if I had wheeled and walked toward him to 'splain myself.

So I went into the lobby, shadow right behind me, and went to the desk, which was behind bullet resistant glass, and transacted my business. At some point, he lost interest in me and went away.

So later, I got to thinking, if I was a bad guy, intent on shooting up the joint, would I have carried the gun in plain sight? Wouldn't I have concealed it just so a cop wouldn't shadow me before I could do my dastardly deed?
 

ChrisGa23

Expert Expediter
Offline
Its not anything top secret about it giving the officer your ID and license. Its just my opinion. It might be my right to not give it to him but thats a right I will let him abuse cause its stupid to sit and argue with an officer who could next day save your life about a stupid issue that can be resolved in minutes. Just give it to him.

Would you want a terrorist or bad guy open carrying a weapon trying to blend in with the normal people to refuse to give his license? Then fight and argue with the officer till he was finally released and free to go then 20 minutes later he shoots up a mall or whatever? In my opinion it should be law to provide your ID.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Its not anything top secret about it giving the officer your ID and license. Its just my opinion. It might be my right to not give it to him but thats a right I will let him abuse cause its stupid to sit and argue with an officer who could next day save your life about a stupid issue that can be resolved in minutes. Just give it to him.

Here's the thing: as I mentioned elsewhere, if there's a permitting system (to which I object in the first place, but if there is...) and it's just a matter of him saying, "Hey, buddy, you got a permit for that?" and I pull out my permit, and he compares the picture on it to me and sees that it's me, and then say, "Sorry to have bothered you, have a nice day," then about 80% of my objection goes away. But that's just me. What about Chef's rights or Layoutshooter's rights, or Turtle's rights; do I get to say, "I don't mind that" so then everybody else has to comply? No, I don't. I can only waive my rights, and no one else's. Likewise, you can't waive my rights just because you say it doesn't bother you to have to give ID anytime a cop wants it, or specifically when carrying a gun.

And as I pointed out, it doesn't end there. He's going to hold you until he's run you through NCIC. And if there's somebody with the same name as you who's wanted, now you're going to be detained more than 3-5 minutes.

No, we all have the right to walk the streets unimpeded by the government, and can't be stopped for exercising our rights. To allow otherwise is to stand on a very slippery slope.

Would you want a terrorist or bad guy open carrying a weapon trying to blend in with the normal people to refuse to give his license? Then fight and argue with the officer till he was finally released and free to go then 20 minutes later he shoots up a mall or whatever?
Of course not. But the Founding Fathers faced similar questions of what would happen if people exercised their liberty in ways harmful to society, and they decided, rightly, that the evil that would be perpetrated upon the People by the government is far worse.

The answer to the problem of too much freedom is more freedom. Let other armed civilians take out the terrorists at the mall. What we're doing now--being sitting ducks--sure isn't working.

In my opinion it should be law to provide your ID.
Good thing the Founding Fathers had other opinions.

"Any boot you can lick, I can lick better. I can lick any boot better than you."

"No, you can't."

"Yes, I can, yes I can, yes I can!"


Hey, maybe it should be a law that we have to polish a cop's shoes any time he demands. And salute. No, wait... we should have to bow and tug our forelock. And grovel. And carry anything he wants us to carry. And give him our lunch money. Und show ze papiers, bitte.
 
Last edited:

ChrisGa23

Expert Expediter
Offline
Like I said its just my opinion. You have your opinion no big deal. I do things the way I see and im sure you do to. But overall our opinions dont really matter when the government will continue to rip through our rights on other things.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Hey, maybe it should be a law that we have to polish a cop's shoes any time he demands. And salute. No, wait... we should have to bow and tug our forelock. And grovel. And carry anything he wants us to carry. And give him our lunch money. Und show ze papiers, bitte.

Don't forget the straight arm salute and shout Zeig Heil! :eek::mad:
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Monger, I happen to agree with some of your points but the thing I want to see isn't the restrictions of gun ownership or purchasing at all. I want to see a restriction on criminals who have through due process lost their rights and the ability to see who they are to prevent them from ownership among other things.

Our founding fathers depended on the population to keep the peace, which you mentioned. There are no sanctioned law enforcement things in the Constitution and there were no "civil rights" violations that are spelled out in the constitution when the people are enforcing the peace. That happens only when the government, at any level seem to take it upon themselves to police the people without the people's permission. This is not to say that the population can't pass laws to keep them safe or to do what they want, that is the people's right, not the governments - does this make sense so far?

SO here is an example where a person, Roger Barnett, but now has been sued by the criminals in federal court. He lost his case but the situation is that he was actually doing the job that he has the right to do, defending his property and the country by stopping invaders. It is said that he violated the civil rights of the people by holding them until federal authorities arrived but if one reads the constitution as it is written as a citizen, he can't violate their civil rights under the constitution because it doesn't say that issue is a limit of a citizen - only government. Right?
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Offline
This gun thing will always be with us, so here is the deal: I vote to issue all able bodied folks of sound mind and no criminal record a 44 magnum pistol to level the playing field. Now this way if someone starts some sheet's, all peoples will have equal firepower. It could in a perfect world make one think before he or she starts a gun fight as everyone else has a weapon just like yours,,,its a thought...........:D
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Offline
skyraider wrote:

This gun thing will always be with us, so here is the deal: I vote to issue all able bodied folks of sound mind and no criminal record a 44 magnum pistol to level the playing field. Now this way if someone starts some sheet's, all peoples will have equal firepower. It could in a perfect world make one think before he or she starts a gun fight as everyone else has a weapon just like yours,,,its a thought...........

That is not as out of the question as you might think...I think this city was mentioned here somewhere before, but while not issuing 44 mags..owning a gun in Kennesaw Ga is mandatory:

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

Crime Rate Plummets in Kennesaw, GA


The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
 
Top