Open Carry

[SsevenN]

I'd like to hear DU members opinions on open carry.

It would be great if we could hear comments from some non-gun owners as well. Would you be comfortable with law abiding citizens openly carrying their sidearms? How would you react?

And for the gunnies out here, how do you carry and why?

Thanks

[slackmaster]

1. It's legal here in California. It doesn't bother me personally, but I don't believe it's wise...

...for most people, most of the time.

I do carry openly on occasion, but not in suburban or urban areas.

[BeGoodDoGood]

3. I can see why people wouldn't like open carry.....

Makes your town look like Dodge City.

[Xithras]

4. It's legal in California only if you don't mind being stopped at gunpoint by the police every 90 sec

Since California law also prohibits the gun from being loaded, open-carry is also kind of pointless. Not many criminals are going to hang out while you load your gun to defend yourself.

And the police really don't get it. I've been stopped at gunpoint for openly carrying a rifle in a RURAL FARM AREA in the Central Valley. Some idiot on a cellphone called in and reported a "crazy guy waving a gun around". I was pheasant hunting in a perfectly legal area. Still, the rookie deputy who responded hopped out of his car, gun drawn, and ordered me to the ground. When I told him that I was just hunting, he informed me that "it's not legal to carry guns around in public in California." A more experienced officer showed up a short while later, found out what happened, and let me go.

I can just imagine what would have happened if I'd been walking down the road with my rifle in, say, San Jose or Sacramento.

[PavePusher]

38. Not pointless.

Since in much of the state it's the ONLY way for a mere citizen to carry legally, and a modern semi-auto pistol (and even many revolvers) can be drawn and loaded in under 3 seconds (with practice), it certainly beats having to wait for the sleepy 911 operater to answer the phone...

And as a bonus it really sticks in the craw of the hand-wringing politicians currently working hard to destroy that fine state (on all wings of the political spectrum).

[Xithras]

42. Yes, it's pointless.

Even with open carry, it's illegal to actually DRAW your weapon in public unless you can prove that your life is in imminent danger. If the imminent danger requirement isn't satisfied BEFORE the weapon is un-holstered, you'll probably find yourself serving a non-trivial prison sentence for brandishing...or worse. You know as well as I do that California DA's love to prosecute cases like these.

Here's the rub: If your life is already in imminent danger, what are the odds that you'll have three whole seconds to load your gun? A fit attacker can close well over a 20 foot gap in three seconds. Do you know how many times a thug can stab you in three seconds? Do you know how many rounds a mugger can squeeze off in three seconds? Even your three second estimate assumes that you're clear to reload. An attacker armed with nothing more than a baseball bat is going to start wailing on you the moment your gun clears the holster. How many seconds will it take you to load and prepare your firearm for use if Joe Thug is trying to beat your skull in with his Louisville Slugger at the same time? The odds that you're going to have three uninterrupted seconds to load your firearm when you're already in imminent danger is pretty much zero. Joe Thug is going to beat you senseless, take your gun, and leave you bleeding and dazed.

And that is why open carry is pointless in California. There is no advantage to carrying an unloaded gun for self defense when the criminals know it's unloaded.

[PavePusher]

49. Again, not pointless. Allow me to expound...

Firstly, due to California's "May Issue" laws, in many jurisdictions Unloaded Open Carry is the only way a Common Citizen is allowed to carry. I think is is reasonable to assume that UOC is better than no carry at all, and may be better than illegal Loaded Carry for a variety of reasons.

"Even with open carry, it's illegal to actually DRAW your weapon in public unless you can prove that your life is in imminent danger."

Method of legal carry has nothing to do with legality of use.


"Here's the rub: If your life is already in imminent danger, what are the odds that you'll have three whole seconds to load your gun? A fit attacker can close well over a 20 foot gap in three seconds. Do you know how many times a thug can stab you in three seconds? Do you know how many rounds a mugger can squeeze off in three seconds? Even your three second estimate assumes that you're clear to reload. An attacker armed with nothing more than a baseball bat is going to start wailing on you the moment your gun clears the holster. How many seconds will it take you to load and prepare your firearm for use if Joe Thug is trying to beat your skull in with his Louisville Slugger at the same time? The odds that you're going to have three uninterrupted seconds to load your firearm when you're already in imminent danger is pretty much zero."

You may be correct, although so far I can't find any anecdotes or data that back up your assertion. Also, if the person(s) are indicating a threat to your life, I'd rather have the chance that I might be able to defend myself, than no options at all. One can load while retreating or dodging. There are way to many variables to be certain of a given outcome in most situations. Better a slim chance than no chance.


"Joe Thug is going to beat you senseless, take your gun, and leave you bleeding and dazed."

This doesn't seem to happen often. Cite me a statistically meaningful number of instances and I'll proudly eat my Crow.


"And that is why open carry is pointless in California. There is no advantage to carrying an unloaded gun for self defense when the criminals know it's unloaded."

I wonder how many criminals actually know what the law is? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering if anyone's done a study on that one.



And lastly, it makes an important political and civil statement: I am obeying the law and not hurting anyone.

Of course, if you think we should simply give up our rights because it is "pointless", you probably better give up a bunch of others that many people fought very hard to secure for you.

[BeGoodDoGood]

22. A Well Armed Society is a Polite Society

A "pacifist male" is a contradiction in terms. Most self-described "pacifists" are not pacific; they simply assume false colors. When the wind changes, they hoist the Jolly Roger.

-- Robert Heinlein

[Katya Mullethov]

44. There are a lot of people in this world today

That really do need to run for their lives . Even if the point still escapes them , they really need some excercise .

[BeGoodDoGood]

2. Well..........

If more people were carrying firearms, openly or not, you'd have fewer home invasions, execution style murders, car jackings and right across the spectrum.

Yes, the answer to gun violence is to have more guns, not fewer.

And the anti-gun people will throw up their hands and say, "That is CRAZY!"

But it is NOT crazy unless you can strip guns out of our society 100%. And that just ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Walt

[whoneedstickets]

5. Yep, I guess you apply the same logic to war and nuclear weapons?

I'd love to hear your 'logic' on that arms race.

[BeGoodDoGood]

18. Hand Guns are not nuclear weapons.

Until you can strip out -all- the firearms, good men need them.

Here is the question this turns on: Who gets the last one?

Walt

[Statistical]

25. Logic.

Since people have access to fishing boats we also are allowing them access to nuclear aircraft carriers.
Since people have access to private aircraft they also have access to strike fighters and stealth bombers.
Since people have access to yeast they also have access to smallpox.
Since people have access to insecticide they also have access to VX nerve gas.
Since people have access to firecrackers they also have access to high yield explosives.

If only there was a way for people to have access to boats, planes, cooking items, chemicals, and explosives without having access to military weapons, biological agents, chemical weapons, and military bombs.

Damn. Maybe someday people will figure that out.
Until then allowing a single person access to a handgun is putting a nuclear weapon in the hands of every gang member.

[zipplewrath]

10. Um, south central LA would like to talk to you

If more people were carrying firearms, openly or not, you'd have fewer home invasions, execution style murders, car jackings and right across the spectrum.

I'd be curious your basis for this claim. There are several urban areas in this country right now that have an sizable presence of guns and all it has produced is alot of drive by shootings. A tactical analysis at our facility determined that arming the security guards merely resulted in a greater chance of tresspassers being armed. SWAT uses not just "more guns" but advanced tactics as well. More guns without advanced tactics isn't generally a solution to any hostile situation. So I'm suspicious that merely adding more armed people to a community would particularly reduce the incidents you suggest.

[BeGoodDoGood]

19. Your facility?

What is your facility?

They had that double killing down in Florida where the wealthy couple were gunned down. The perps were only inside four minutes.

Four minutes.

If either of them had had a hand gun close, they would have been able to keep the bad guys off them and get a better outcome. I always keep my hand gun within arm's reach when I am home.

Walt

[zipplewrath]

28. Company

The company I work for. We used to have armed guards. It was determined through a few studies that it wasn't worth it because they could only use them defensively and it put them at risk of being attacked offensively.

As for the couple you mention, as you say, they would have had to have the proper tactics to have succesfully accessed a gun for defensive purposes in that scenario. Furthermore, in an environment where it is presumed a victim can or will be armed, the offensive tactics of the attackers will often change to a more aggressive form where you'll have less time to react, regardless of whether you are armed. Like I say, the police don't just carry more guns, they change their weapons AND their tactics when they become more aggressive.

[BeGoodDoGood]

48. So it is better to let the perps..........

just walk up and shoot you. Well, that will save some fuss, I reckon.

Walt

[katandmoon]

6. I remember as a kid, watching westerns on TV and being flabbergasted that the men wore holsters

As a matter of course. I just could not imagine living in a society where one could just whip out a loaded pistol and shoot. To me that was the height of savagery. I was grateful I lived in a time where people could no longer do that.

Well, wasn't the joke on me.

Gun worshippers, aided by the congress-buying NRA, are ruining the freedom of non-gun worshippers to leave their homes without fear of a shoot out. Because you tell me what the point of open carry is, other than to be in total readiness at any time to shoot.

I fucking hate them.
I fucking hate guns.
I fucking hate the NRA.
I fucking wish them all the mayhem they would foist on everyone els just so they can have their dick extensions ever closer to hand for their convenient massaging and getting themselves off on it.

[Hangingon]

7. What rage. Sad.

[BeGoodDoGood]

20. Don't Worry...

There are still people willing to protect you.

Walt

[Hoopla Phil]

31. STOP - the hate.

[TheWraith]

39. Your irrational rage distorts your perspective.

"Gun worshippers, aided by the congress-buying NRA, are ruining the freedom of non-gun worshippers to leave their homes without fear of a shoot out."

In the same timespan since concealed carry became legal in most of the country, violent crime--including deaths from firearms--has decreased by over 30%. The idea that concealed carry means gunfights in the streets has been ludicrous since the talking point was first introduced.

[Tim01]

51. Wow, you really are very emotional. Hard to be rational like that. nt

[iverglas]

8. I give up

Would you be comfortable with law abiding citizens openly carrying their sidearms?

How would we know? If you see someone carrying a gun, do you have magic goggles that tell you whether they're "law abiding"? Do you have a crystal ball that then tells you whether they're planning on being "law abiding" for the next 5 minutes?


How would you react?

Exactly the way I'd react when I saw any other thuggish bully in my vicinity.

By wrinkling my nose in disgust and getting as far away as possible.

Oh, and calling the police at the first opportunity. Where I'm at, the only "law abiding citizens" who display firearms on their persons in public are members of police services on duty at the time. So unless the person was the police, the police would be called.



typo fixed

[gorfle]

15. Silly response.

How would we know? If you see someone carrying a gun, do you have magic goggles that tell you whether they're "law abiding"? Do you have a crystal ball that then tells you whether they're planning on being "law abiding" for the next 5 minutes?

This is kind of a silly response.

How do you know if anyone walking around you is "law abiding" or is planning on breaking the law in the next 5 minutes?

Exactly the way I'd react when I saw any other thuggish bully in my vicinity.

By wrinkling my nose in disgust and getting as far away as possible.

Oh, and calling the police at the first opportunity. Where I'm at, the only "law abiding citizens" who display firearms on their persons in public are members of police services on duty at the time. So unless the person was the police, the police would be called.

I still wonder that a citizen wearing a uniform can carry a gun and not be a thuggish bully, but a citizen not wearing a uniform carrying a gun is suddenly a thuggish bully.

I also find it sad that a person who has taken direct personal responsibility for his safety and those around him would be considered a thuggish bully. Around here we call them "good samaritans".

[iverglas]

17. indeed

How do you know if anyone walking around you is "law abiding" or is planning on breaking the law in the next 5 minutes?

Was someone asking a question to which this was relevant?

Did someone say: what would you do if you saw a law abiding person walking around?

I don't think so.


I still wonder that a citizen wearing a uniform can carry a gun and not be a thuggish bully, but a citizen not wearing a uniform carrying a gun is suddenly a thuggish bully.

And the only thing I wonder is why you'd be wondering this.

I said that members of the public who are not police (or members of another tiny category of people) who walk around in public displaying firearms on their person are thuggish bullies.

I didn't say that ANYONE else, including but not limited to members of police services, IS NOT a thuggish bully.

So you can stop wondering now.

The fact is that police display firearms because they are authorized and required to carry them IN ORDER TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THEIR POSITION, which they do subject to public oversight. They may be thuggish bullies, but that cannot be determined merely by observing the firearm on their person.

And the fact is that anyone else who does it is a thuggish bully. The firearm displayed on their person is the evidence.


I also find it sad that a person who has taken direct personal responsibility for his safety and those around him would be considered a thuggish bully. Around here we call them "good samaritans".

Cry me a river.

I take responsibility for my safety and the safety of people around me. I might be a thuggish bully, because I have exhibited some thuggish bully characteristics or behaviour. If you see me promenading around with a pit bull, for instance, feel free to call me a thuggish bully.

Meanwhile, I'll feel free to call people who promenade around with guns thuggish bullies. Based on that observed behaviour. Not on what hymn they sang in church on Sunday, or how many kittens they rescued last week, or any other irrelevant crap and fanciful portraits you might want to fling around.

[gorfle]

26. The Holy Duties of Thier Position.

The fact is that police display firearms because they are authorized and required to carry them IN ORDER TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THEIR POSITION, which they do subject to public oversight. They may be thuggish bullies, but that cannot be determined merely by observing the firearm on their person.

And the fact is that anyone else who does it is a thuggish bully. The firearm displayed on their person is the evidence.

All hail the "Holy Duties of Their Position"!

You have so much faith in your police, and so little in your fellow citizens.

[iverglas]

30. keep trying

You have so much faith in your police, and so little in your fellow citizens.

I have no faith in anybody or anything that is relevant here.

I know that there are mechanisms instituted by the public to reduce the risk of on-duty police causing harm with firearms.

You do remember that I no more approve of police acting otherwise than in the course of their duties having handguns, or carrying firearms on their person, on display or otherwise, than I approve of anyone else doing those things.

I do have a reasonable amount of faith in the institutions of my society to deal with any problems that arise in connection with police carrying firearms in the course of their duties.

And I'd hate to live with so little faith in my fellow citizens that I didn't trust them to establish and operate such institutions, as evidently very few people here have.

[gorfle]

34. Keep on trusting them.

And I'd hate to live with so little faith in my fellow citizens that I didn't trust them to establish and operate such institutions, as evidently very few people here have.

If they can be trusted to establish and operate such institutions, then they can be trusted with the tools being used to run them.

[krispos42]

9. Doesn.t make sense to me outside of field activities

Like hunting, camping, hiking, ranching, etc. That's appropriate. And if you're doing that and have to go into town, then that's fine as well.

But routinely? Seems out of place and not particularly productive or protective. I can imagine a situation where you get pepper-sprayed and your gun stolen from your holster simply because some criminal wants to steal your pistol. And because you're openly carrying, they can target you knowing that there isn't institutional backing to you being armed.

Okay, it's unlikely. But I really don't want to dangle something worth a thousand dollars from my hip, either.

[Statistical]

21. Lot easier and safer methods to steal a gun then attacking someone you know is armed.

[TheWraith]

That doesn't mean somebody's not stupid enough to try it. nt

[TheWraith]

40. Delete, dupe. nt

[burrfoot]

11. Not needed

on a daily basis, I don't think. As has been mentioned, I believe it's just fine when you're hiking/camping/hunting; ranching/farming; or on your way to or from any of those. In the course of those activities the odds of needing a firearm for purposes other than self defense (from other humans) increase, and there doesn't seem to me to be any point in not having the gun in the open.

Once you're out of the "field", though; two big problems jump out at me- 1) you become a target for anyone who wants to steal your gun; 2) by extension you may be making anyone NOT having a gun on their hip into targets (kind of the reverse of the rental car sticker problem).
Additionally, it makes people uncomfortable. I don't think this should be the case, but I'm not the judge of it either; it's a reality we have to deal with. And, people who are uncomfortable seeing a gun in the open are much more likely to call the cops, who will have to check you out. Every time it happens. Could get old.

So- carry of a firearm on a daily basis, for the large majority of those who do, is for self-defense. That is about actually BEING safe, not about showing everyone that you're safe/tough/whatever.

My vote- tuck it in.

[virginia mountainman]

12. Sometimes..

I carry concealed, Practically ALL the time..

BUT.........

Sometimes, I will "expose" my sidearm, the reason being the nature of work I do for a living.

My job has me out, at ALL HOURS, some late at night, sometimes in the middle of the day in industrial areas of several large middle atlantic cities, stretching from Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, to Georgia, and all points in between.

Part of my job requires me to be out, walking down dark alleyways, and in the shadows of old factories, in very depressed neighborhoods. No matter the weather. Other times, will find me, needing to stand around in these areas for HOURS...

Their has been a couple of times, that some of the locals, where paying very close attention to me, and speaking in whispers to one another...While gradually getting closer..While watching me very closely. I look very out of place, with the way I dress, in these areas.

So, I will tuck in my shirt, take off my jacket, fully exposing the 1911 on my hip, or exposing the Glock I normally carry in a very covert way...LOL I do this when they are approaching me in a threatening manner, not when they are CLOSER than several paces away. Boy, it is amazing how their body language changes...

This tends to get me tons of space, and defuses the situation. I have only needed to expose my sidearm like this a couple of times over the years. And when I did it, practically all the "alarm bells" in my mind where going off, except for the "DRAW!!!!!!!" one was going off.

The problem with CCW, is that to prove you are armed, you practically need to shoot someone. I would rather avoid those situations in the first place, in a legal way. it is illegal to hold a gun, in a way that may threaten someone, this is called "brandishing", in the eyes of the law, if you need to reach for it, you BETTER USE IT. The law also does not recognize "shoot to wound" their is only "shoot to kill" either, you are justified to shoot or you are not...And if you do, it better be to kill.

As I have pointed out in other threads, I also practice, a very aggressive form of situational awareness, my nature of my job has honed this to a fine art.

And yes, my employer is fine with me carrying a sidearm..

[gorfle]

13. I do not advocate open carry.

Openly carrying a firearm does not solve any problems, but does create them.

I have always been taught, and taught others, that you should never produce a firearm unless you actually intend to shoot someone. It is not a bargaining tool. It is not an intimidation tool. It is not something you whip out to show you mean business. All negotiations should be handled civilly well before the firearm is produced. Once the firearm has been produced, it is because someone is in danger and you are going to shoot them to stop it. This is not to say that you must shoot someone once you have produced the weapon, for sometimes it ends up not being necessary. But once you produce the weapon, you had best be intending to shoot.

Openly showing a firearm has two major problems. Firstly, it identifies you as having a firearm. To someone bent on committing a crime, you have just identified yourself as someone to be dealt with immediately upon opening hostilities. Secondly, there are those who see carrying a firearm as a challenge, and they may "push" you just to see if you're really a "tough guy" or just pretending to be a tough guy.

I can think of no advantages of open carry that outweigh the disadvantages. I suppose you might be able to more speedily bring your weapon into play, and I suppose there may be some slight deterrent effect of those around you who see you are armed who might otherwise think of committing a crime. But to me, neither of these advantages are worth the risk of painting a target on yourself.

[X_Digger]

14. I would be comfortable with others, but my state doesn't allow it..

.. and I'm not sure I'd do it myself.

I'm in the process of getting my CHL, I plan to carry inside the waistband or in a fanny pack. (I'd prefer shoulder holster for comfort, but Texas is too hot to wear a jacket all the time.)

[spin]

24. Shoulder holsters are IMO a pain in the ass...

If you plan to wear the firearm all day long, it might be worth the effort to put on the shoulder holster. For a quick trip, it's just too much trouble. The biggest advantage that the shoulder holster offers is quick access in a car, but it has all the disadvantages of a cross draw holster.

The fanny pack or IWB are two excellent carry options.

[X_Digger]

27. *nod* I spend a lot of time in my truck when I plan to carry

A friend of mine who has his CHL loaned me two shoulder holsters, a spare IWB, and old fanny pack. I spent a week with each moving about the house and truck with a bag of lead shot in them to simulate the weight of my XD. The shoulder rig was the most comfortable to me, then the fanny pack, then the IWB. (I never could get the the IWB in a spot that I could tolerate for more than an hour, and nowhere that I could reach it easily while seated in the truck. Not to mention, I have no rear end and was always tugging on my belt with the IWB.)

[jeepnstein]

16. It's OK in the right setting.

Concealed carry is more practical for normal law-abiding folks going about their daily business.

[Statistical]

23. I have a couple times.

I did because VA law allows it and I have noticed that a partially concealed weapon is sometimes more alarming than one visible.

I normally carry concealed but before getting a Ruger LCP I found that in summertime while technically concealed the weapon (at least to me) was obvious.

I guess I was just being paranoid but I was standing in line at Grocery store and someone was CCW was carrying ahead of me, behind him was a middle aged lady, and then it was me. His shirt rode up when he got some soda out of his cart and the lady screamed out "HES GOT A GUN! HES GOT A GUN! HES GOT A GUN!". Rather than have that happen to me I simply open carried when my clothing & weapon had the risk of being exposed.

Strangely most people don't even notice, or if they do they assume you are Police.

[spin]

29. The Ruger LCP is a great concealed carry piece. (n/t)

[Statistical]

32. Yeah it has simplified conceal carry for me because it can be concealed in a pocket.

I have a hard leather pocket holster that prints like a wallet.
I can carry it with anything even dockers, dress shirt & tie required by work.

[virginia mountainman]

46. I pocket carry a Glock 36 most of the time anymore...NT

[Hoopla Phil]

33. I don't have a problem with it BUT

I believe that there should be a licensing requirement similar to many CHL laws. A person should be knowledgeable on the laws regarding use of force and show competence with a firearm in order to obtain the license.

I believe that such regulations would be constitutional so long as the license is "shall issue" and the fees are not prohibitive. The current total ban on the barring of arms in many states (IMO) is a violation of the 2A.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. As one of the most hated on the "gun nuts" I just have to say, I don't carry a firearm.

[PavePusher]

36. I open carry.

All over Arizona, Utah, New Hampshire and Vermont, where legal to do so. I have never had any problems. For the record, I am also legal to conceal in all those places.

Concealed carry is physically uncomfortable, makes drawing a more involved process, restricts one's wardrobe and has little demonstrated "tactical" advantage. You'd be amazed how many people actually don't notice a full size 1911 in a Serpa holster, with a double magazine holder on the opposite side of the belt. I have never had a negative comment, but occasionally am asked about it in a curious-positive way, and have received numerous compliments. I always appreciate the opportunity to educate and debate with fellow citizens.

All the fevered imaginings that "some thug will take your gun", or "the criminal will shoot you first" have no statistical evidence behind them. I probably stand a better chance of winning the lottery in all fifty states in the same year.

[Thothmes]

37. VA is an open carry state

I have never seen a citizen openly carrying a fire arm in public. That being said, I carry a 12 gage shotgun at work. I work alone in an area with a long track record of violent crime. Didnt for a long time, but several different police officers from the local precinct recommended it.

[TheWraith]

41. Disclaimer: I don't own a pistol, and open carry isn't legal in NY anyway.

That said, personally I wouldn't do it in public simply because it attracts the wrong kind of attention.

[Euromutt]

43. It's not for me, but I don't object to it

There are arguments both for open carry and concealed, and I don't disagree with people who make the choice for themselves to OC, but it's not something I personally feel comfortable doing in public. The OCers I've talked to are generally understanding about that.

[Endangered Specie]

45. Citizens carry concealeed, LEO carry open.

To me each methods is far more suited to the group in question.

Concealed carry allows for not disturbing the public who don't know its legal to carry a gun in public. Someone who plans to rob you does not know you are carrying, if they DID see you open carrying they may not rob you, or they may pull their gun out behind you, or attempt to take your gun. Gun retention is alot easier if no one knows you have it.

Police of course must carry open. An *apparently* unarmed policeman on the streets is bound to get less respect and authority, and may be required to draw the concealed gun more than he should as a result. Also as police may need to use their guns more AND offensively (civilians by law can only use theirs in self defense) so they tend to use service weapons which are large and hard to conceal. Civilian CCW guns tend to be small, easy to hide, and unobtrusive as its not a civilans *JOB* to carry the gun.

[benEzra]

47. As others have pointed out, concealed is more practical where authorized...

and offers some tactical advantages as well.

[Tim01]

50. I have mixed feelings on this.

On one hand, the more often people open carry, the more average people get used to it. And guns become not a big deal.

On the other hand, some people do become quite hysterical at the sight of a gun and cause a lot of trouble for lots of people.