Open Carry

[Jon1911]

Now I can completely agree with you.

Ok, excellent.


I think it's similar to the drastic reductions in government spending that are required to prevent the collapse of our nation. We can sit and bicker for years to come about different spending such as healthcare or military presence in the middle east. Unfortunately, if we fail to agree to make drastic spending cuts, we will watch our nation collapse because we simply can't afford them.

This is why I try to cut through the bickering to the core point. If the actual proponents of freedom can't come to a simple agreement about OC because we're too caught up in the bickering, how will we ever convince anyone else?

The same is true of spending. Maybe the military is in the right place, or maybe Ron Paul is right and we need to GTFO. Unfortunately, policy bickering will only help to ensure we collapse. The only conversation worth having is where and how to cut spending.

Unless we focus on the points where we agree, we have no chance of success.

 

[sky king]

Attaboy, Jon! I see you're in law school. We need more lawyers who believe in and understand our Constitution. You keep on tellin' it like it is.

Sky.

 

[jeremycknight]

All the places that allow open carry the crime rate dropped quickly

 

[rebelracer79]

I was in a convenience store the other day whil a tv behind the register was running a story on OC, the clerk said "that's so crazy" I guess she thought I was another sheeple, because when I told her the only people who will be open carrying already have a ccl and are carrying anyway, you just can't see it. She looked at me like I was retarded, I took my change and walked out...

 

[shorton]

I agree with everyone on here, who says there should be no law that says how, what, when, or if I should be able to carry. However, under the existing law, that's what we have to deal with. Am I wrong in thinking that this is just about making it easier for people who carry already? I am most certainly over simplifying things, but doesn't this just do away with the threat of a charge for brandishing a weapon if someone happens to see your gun? Personally, this changes nothing for me, and probably for most CCL holders.

 

[okiebryan]

Open Carry is not for everyone. If you aren't comfortable open carrying, then please don't. I'd say the same thing about concealed carry. If you aren't comfortable carrying at all, please don't.

But when you examine all the "what if" scenarios, please remember that we have 43 other states to look at their experience over many decades, in some cases 2 centuries plus.

If the "gun grab" scenario among non LEO types is so rare that it's statistically insignificant, then what makes you think OK will be any different?

If the "criminal will shoot you first" scenario has NEVER HAPPENED ANYWHERE, then what makes you think our criminals are so much different?

There are some undeniable benefits to either method of carry. There are some risks. Look at FACTS and make your decision based on what is actually likely to happen, rather than on some imaginary boogeyman that has never shown himself to even be real.

Should you decide that OC is not right for you, then don't do it. Feel free to join us in ensuring that right, though. We will certainly mobilize to fight for your right to carry how you see fit if that is ever threatened. We will even welcome people to our get-togethers who don't OC. CC, OC or no-C. If you share an interest with us, then you are welcome.

 

[okiebryan]

Just noticed the necro. Sorry, didn't mean to add to that.

 

[MLR]

If the "criminal will shoot you first" scenario has NEVER HAPPENED ANYWHERE, then what makes you think our criminals are so much different?

But if this did happen wouldn't that be good for everyone who doesn't open carry? The way the anti's keep bringing this up you would think that they are upset about not being targeted first.

Michael

 

[p238shooter]

As usual, many views here with great opinions to think about. As I see it, there are various degrees of BG's. The baddest are mostly likely not concerned about much of any one with or without a firearm or might only be concerned about a LEO with a firearm. The medium to punk BG's most likely would be somewhat concerned about avoiding anyone with a firearm, unless they are desperate. The number of CC licenses acquired by the public desiring to protect themselves from situations has not deterred the punks much that I can see.

If I now open carry but slightly covered with an un-tucked T-Shirt, (mostly for my physical comfort) it just might be that one of those punks in the parking lot that might have targeted me or my wife not thinking about whether we might be CC or not, but might get a flash view of the end of my belt holster sticking down below my T-Shirt might look for an easier target. If I have enough situational awareness, I might even need to adjust the neckband on my T-shirt by pulling it out and up a little to stretch it out. They tend to shrink up in the wash ya know.

I do not intend to flaunt my OC, but I do not intend to hide it either. If I am accosted by a real BG, I do not think it will make a lot of difference one way or the other, just as it is with LEO's who have their houses broken into with them home by some BG's.

Unlike some others her, I am not hoping for an opportunity to surprise some punk BG with my CC carry, I want to initially give him an opportunity to make a decision to leave me alone in the first place, if he is paying attention. If he is not paying attention, not smart enough, or too desperate, I will proceed accordingly.

Along with that I do not want to make a spectacle of myself (at least most of the time,) since OC is new to the other citizens of OK. I would think easing into this might be better than being "in your face" most of the time, but again, I will not be hiding all the time either. Hopefully most of the public will get used to seeing some forms of OC, printing, wind blow up, or me reaching up on a shelf and eventually get to a point where it seems "normal" like most other states.

 

[tweetr]

Okay let me play devils advocate here. Lets say they pass a law where you are allowed to open carry or conceal..your choice.Lets say the law states that as an officer I am allowed to ask you for your license at any time for any reason. And if you dont have one you go straight to jail for unlicensed carry. Would you agree to that?

I am afraid I have to agree with GC. Law Enforcement has to have some way to determine whether the person carry legally be in possesion of the firearm. How else are they going to do that without issueing some sort of license. Otherwise we would have convicted felons walking around with firearms openly strapped to their hip and the civilians and LEO's would be none the wiser as if they are legal or not.

It just comes down to checks and balances and officer safety can sometime overule your rights as a citizen. Whether right or wrong that's the way it is.

Yikes! Double yikes! NO NO NO NO NO!
GlockCop and Copeje, I would like you both to elaborate on the constitutionality of your position. Now you are both advocating shredding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments along with the Second!

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Fifth Amendment (excerpted): "nor shall (any person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

And, of course, the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

A weapon ("arms") carried on a citizen's person, in addition to being explicitly protected by the Second Amendment, may not be taken as a cause to search his "person" (whereon he "bears" the weapon); may not be taken as a cause to search his "papers" (any license to carry same, which in itself already impermissibly "infringes" his right to keep and bear arms); may not be taken as a cause to search his "effects" (which would include the weapon itself); may not be taken as cause to deprive him of "liberty" (detain him from going about his business); may not be taken as cause to deprive him of "property" (the weapon itself); and the search itself cannot take place without a warrant issued upon probable cause particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized! None of the requirements above is satisfied, and all are explicitly violated, when a law enforcement officer, upon no cause other than spotting a constitutionally protected weapon, demands that a citizen show proof that he is not a criminal!

GlockCop, I would expect a law enforcement officer at any level to be familiar with and abide by and uphold the highest law of the land. Copeje, explain to me how the needs of officer safety can - ever! - render null the protections of the individual citizen under the Constitution. It is the duty of the law enforcement officer (or the government official at any level, for that matter!) to protect the rights and safety of the citizen, not the other way around. In performing any of his duties, a law enforcement officer (or any other government official at any level, for that matter!) is bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He may not baldly ignore the Constitution to protect his own safety.