Should Open Carry be Legal?

[cpgrad08]

In my state of Washington State it is Legal to open carry a loaded hand gun ( without Permit and you must be 21) in the public. There are a few off limit areas Like schools, liquor stores, Courtrooms and Police Building and Music festivals. I was wondering how many people here think every state should allow open carry. If so with permit or no permit. I practice Open Carry everyday when I'm back home in Washington State.

 

[TurtleDude]

In my state of Washington State it is Legal to open carry a loaded hand gun ( without Permit and you must be 21) in the public. There are a few off limit areas Like schools, liquor stores, Courtrooms and Police Building and Music festivals. I was wondering how many people here think every state should allow open carry. If so with permit or no permit. I practice Open Carry everyday when I'm back home in Washington State.

after McDonald it should be enforced as a constitutional right in every area under US jurisdiction

 

[Your Star]

Yes it should, I'm on the fence about making a permit required, leaning towards the pro side of that argument. Mainly because it's a good idea to have people know what they're doing if they are going to carry.

 

[dabateman]

I'm for open carry. I'm for concealed carry. I think both should come with basic education/age requirements for public safety reasons, and areas where carrying is prohibited (schools, government buildings, etc...).

 

[Henrin]

The question is obvious.

Yes to open carry

and no to the permit.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It's legal here in Oregon. One of the reasons I was willing to move here.

It's even better in Wyoming, where concealed carry is legal with or without a license. (They issue licenses for States with reciprocity agreements.)

 

[Goshin]

In my state of Washington State it is Legal to open carry a loaded hand gun ( without Permit and you must be 21) in the public. There are a few off limit areas Like schools, liquor stores, Courtrooms and Police Building and Music festivals. I was wondering how many people here think every state should allow open carry. If so with permit or no permit. I practice Open Carry everyday when I'm back home in Washington State.

As a matter of principle, I think no-permit carry, open or concealed (ie "Vermont carry", now legal in Vermont, Alaska and a couple other places) is properly in line with the 2A of the BoR.

In practice, I'm okay with carry permits as a compromise. At least you get a little training in legal issues and practical matters, and they impress upon you that you're taking on a substantial responsibility in going armed in public.

In places where it is legal, I have no problem with anyone practicing open carry.

I prefer to carry concealed for several reasons.

1. Least but not trivial, some people are upset by the sight of a firearm openly visible on someone's belt. Personally I think this is a bit childish, but some people do feel that way. Out of respect for their peace of mind, I'm okay with concealing my weapon to avoid upsetting them.
The possibility that people who are alarmed by open carry firearms would pressure more places to "post" against carry is something I think about also.

2. Much more important to me is the tactical considerations. Open carry marks you as someone who is dangerous to mess with, but it also marks you are Target No 1 if the BG's decide to engage anyway. It tells the BGs that if they ARE going to go after you, they need to go in hot and not fool around. If they 'get the drop on you' and take you hostage, the first thing they're going to do is take away your open-carry obvious firearm.
There's also the issue of people getting close to you and grabbing your openly-carried gun. Police officers typically use Level II or III Retention Holsters for this very reason, and still occasionally get disarmed by some perp.

None of these things are a major issue if you conceal your firearm.

I prefer that the first hint the BG's have that I am armed or dangerous is after I've already shot them.

Yes, drawing from an open-carry belt holster is typically a little faster than drawing from concealment. I take a slightly different tack though... while I DO practice fast-draw methods, I have NO intention of ever getting into a Contest of Fast-Draw Skills.... if I ever do, it is an indication that my situational awareness and tactical decision-making have failed miserably, or that something really out of the ordinary has happened. Anytime things look like they may go sideways, I try to position myself and set things up so that I either already have my gun in my hand before anyone else does, or so that I am able to draw covertly without being seen doing so if it is called for.

Just like in military tactics.... if they expect you to attack their base from the north, go wide around and attack it from the south, or go around and attack something else and force them to come to you on ground you picked out for that purpose.

I'm a sneaky sumbeech... If I HAVE to shoot some criminal perp, I'd druther shoot him in the back than the front any day, preferably before he has any idea that I might be a threat. If their last thoughts are wondering who the heck shot them and still not knowing, so much the better.

Concealed carry plays into my preferred tactical methodology better than open carry.

But, let me be clear I have zero problem with legalizing open carry. I'm all for it... but I'll probably go right on concealing my weapons just like always.

 

[AGENT J]

In my state of Washington State it is Legal to open carry a loaded hand gun ( without Permit and you must be 21) in the public. There are a few off limit areas Like schools, liquor stores, Courtrooms and Police Building and Music festivals. I was wondering how many people here think every state should allow open carry. If so with permit or no permit. I practice Open Carry everyday when I'm back home in Washington State.

Is it common for states to have a no open carry law? I thought open carry was the norm?

As far as a permit goes, I dont mind permits, I know others hate them and I would NEVER argue against saying they violate the 2nd because that argument can be made and I believe its sound. Its just I have no problem with requiring a permit :shrug:

AS LONG as the permit is quick, in PA my permit check took about 15mins and to get my CWP it took like a month.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In my state of Washington State it is Legal to open carry a loaded hand gun ( without Permit and you must be 21) in the public. There are a few off limit areas Like schools, liquor stores, Courtrooms and Police Building and Music festivals. I was wondering how many people here think every state should allow open carry. If so with permit or no permit. I practice Open Carry everyday when I'm back home in Washington State.

Per the Second Amendment, no state, and no other level of government, has the authority to prohibit it. What part of “…shall not be infringed” is unclear?

 

[cpgrad08]

Is it common for states to have a no open carry law? I thought open carry was the norm?

As far as a permit goes, I dont mind permits, I know others hate them and I would NEVER argue against saying they violate the 2nd because that argument can be made and I believe its sound. Its just I have no problem with requiring a permit :shrug:

AS LONG as the permit is quick, in PA my permit check took about 15mins and to get my CWP it took like a month.

Well California Bans Open Carry. One of the reason why I hate being Station in Cali.

 

[dabateman]

Per the Second Amendment, no state, and no other level of government, has the authority to prohibit it. What part of “…shall not be infringed” is unclear?

Perfect, let's allow everyone to have nuclear arms! :roll:

 

[Goshin]

Perfect, let's allow everyone to have nuclear arms! :roll:

To be frank, this is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever mustered against private arms. You're relatively new and may not be aware that this ludicrous comparison between small arms and nukes has been trashed thoroughly many times here at DP.

There is, quite obviously, a HUGE difference between any firearm, however powerful, and the smallest nuke or other strategic weapons system. It's like comparing a hangnail to open heart surgery, or saying "If we allow people to buy fireworks without special training, we'd have to let them buy plastic explosives by the ton with no questions asked!"

It's just a stupid comparison and totally unreasonable, as well as being a "slippery slope fallacy" of the most egregious kind.

 

[lpast]

Im a gun rights guy...but I have a real problem with open carry for everyone...I truly believe that anyone that carries a firearm, be it concealed or open SHOULD BE TRAINED IN HOW TO USE IT...there are too many untrained people running around with guns....
I have a vet friend that asked me to show him how to take apart his glock to clean it...I said what ? glock is the easiest of all to get apart...I took his gun apart and was stunned at how caked with crap it was...id be afraid to fire it....too many guns in the hands of people that are totally clueless....If you want open carry...you need to be trained first and real training....

 

[Goshin]

Im a gun rights guy...but I have a real problem with open carry for everyone...I truly believe that anyone that carries a firearm, be it concealed or open SHOULD BE TRAINED IN HOW TO USE IT...there are too many untrained people running around with guns....
I have a vet friend that asked me to show him how to take apart his glock to clean it...I said what ? glock is the easiest of all to get apart...I took his gun apart and was stunned at how caked with crap it was...id be afraid to fire it....too many guns in the hands of people that are totally clueless....If you want open carry...you need to be trained first and real training....

Easy breezy.... make it a class in high school. They teach Sex Ed, so why not Basic Gun Stuff 101.... :mrgreen:

 

[dabateman]

To be frank, this is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever mustered against private arms. You're relatively new and may not be aware that this ludicrous comparison between small arms and nukes has been trashed thoroughly many times here at DP.

There is, quite obviously, a HUGE difference between any firearm, however powerful, and the smallest nuke or other strategic weapons system. It's like comparing a hangnail to open heart surgery, or saying "If we allow people to buy fireworks without special training, we'd have to let them buy plastic explosives by the ton with no questions asked!"

It's just a stupid comparison and totally unreasonable, as well as being a "slippery slope fallacy" of the most egregious kind.

I am new. And when someone asserts that the second amendment is some free for all without any reasonable regulation, which is what "shall not be infringed" arguments from those such as Blaylock assert, I cringe. I cringe because they speak in this absolutes that frankly just don't exist.

Of course, as indicated earlier, I am for the second amendment. I'm for the first amendment. Both have reasonable limitations. You can't yell bomb on a plane or fire in a theater, and you shouldn't be carrying a gun, concealed or open, without proper training. They have limitations for the most basic of policy reasons which is ultimately the responsibility of the government, and that is public safety.

I stand by my comment because our system has created reasonable infringements upon the right to bear arms.

 

[dabateman]

Easy breezy.... make it a class in high school. They teach Sex Ed, so why not Basic Gun Stuff 101.... :mrgreen:

We learned in PE... of course with air pistols and rifles, but... It was West Texas.

 

[AGENT J]

To be frank, this is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever mustered against private arms. You're relatively new and may not be aware that this ludicrous comparison between small arms and nukes has been trashed thoroughly many times here at DP.

There is, quite obviously, a HUGE difference between any firearm, however powerful, and the smallest nuke or other strategic weapons system. It's like comparing a hangnail to open heart surgery, or saying "If we allow people to buy fireworks without special training, we'd have to let them buy plastic explosives by the ton with no questions asked!"

It's just a stupid comparison and totally unreasonable, as well as being a "slippery slope fallacy" of the most egregious kind.

and further more the bolded parts above are you being NICE! these are watered down descriptions, its actually worse.

 

[AGENT J]

Easy breezy.... make it a class in high school. They teach Sex Ed, so why not Basic Gun Stuff 101.... :mrgreen:

this actually wouldnt bother me one bit, of course it wouldnt be mandatory just like Sex Ed and Drivers Ed

its funny but I think its a great idea

 

[Goshin]

I am new. And when someone asserts that the second amendment is some free for all without any reasonable regulation, which is what "shall not be infringed" arguments from those such as Blaylock assert, I cringe. I cringe because they speak in this absolutes that frankly just don't exist.

Of course, as indicated earlier, I am for the second amendment. I'm for the first amendment. Both have reasonable limitations. You can't yell bomb on a plane or fire in a theater, and you shouldn't be carrying a gun, concealed or open, without proper training. They have limitations for the most basic of policy reasons which is ultimately the responsibility of the government, and that is public safety.

I stand by my comment because our system has created reasonable infringements upon the right to bear arms.

Okay. If you'd been a bit more explanatory to start with I might not have reacted to it quite so strongly, you know.

In principle I tend to interpret the 2A as referring to "small arms". These are man-portable weapons which are useful for the purpose of self-defense, hunting, sport, infantry/militia service or any other lawful purpose. Anything else is arguably subject to considerable regulation and restriction. The most recent Supreme Court decision tends to uphold that the 2A refers to "small arms" and "common weapons" of this sort.

Nukes, chemical weapons, and bio weapons obviously do not qualify. Most cannot be carried by one man, and those that can are of no use for self-defense, hunting, infantry or indeed any lawful purpose. They are a "mass effect" weapon category that is unable to selectively target and uncontrollable in their effects.

As for training.... yes I'd prefer that anybody who is going to carry get some training. Many do; many people I know who CCW have gone beyond the minimum mandatory training and taken the best tactical/self-defense firearms courses they could afford from reputable instructors. The accident or wrongful shooting stats for permit holders is very very low.

One thing that worries me about mandatory training is the potential that exists for an anti-2A government (state or Fed or whatever) to abuse the requirement and force citizens to either pay ridiculous sums for time-consuming training or otherwise make getting permission to carry an unreasonable burden for all the but the wealthy. This is not an unreasonable concern, as we already have cities and states (NYC comes to mind) where getting a permit to simply OWN a gun is extremely difficult and consumes lots of time and resources unless you're wealthy or have connections to the gov't.

This is one of the reasons I suggest making it a class in High School. Even if you never plan to own a gun, knowing how they work, how to handle one and unload it and render it safe, and the legalities involved in self-defense cannot possibly be a BAD thing. Just as with Sex-Ed we could allow those with principled objections to "opt out" of the class I suppose...

 

[dabateman]

Okay. If you'd been a bit more explanatory to start with I might not have reacted to it quite so strongly, you know.

I thought my first post explained my position quite well. I didn't realize that I needed to post it again to explain the second. I apologize for any confusion.

In principle I tend to interpret the 2A as referring to "small arms". These are man-portable weapons which are useful for the purpose of self-defense, hunting, sport, infantry/militia service or any other lawful purpose. Anything else is arguably subject to considerable regulation and restriction. The most recent Supreme Court decision tends to uphold that the 2A refers to "small arms" and "common weapons" of this sort.

I tend to concur with this interpretation.

Nukes, chemical weapons, and bio weapons obviously do not qualify. Most cannot be carried by one man, and those that can are of no use for self-defense, hunting, infantry or indeed any lawful purpose. They are a "mass effect" weapon category that is unable to selectively target and uncontrollable in their effects.

But the plain wording of the document, which many second amendment "nuts" insist upon, doesn't make that distinction. So their argument does lead to a slippery slope sort of world where anything goes. However, in our wisdom, we have created necessary limitations on the second amendment in the interests of public safety. Reasonable people agree that it is important to be measured.

As for training.... yes I'd prefer that anybody who is going to carry get training. Many do; many people I know who CCW have gone beyond the minimum mandatory training and taken the best tactical/self-defense firearms courses they could afford from reputable instructors. The accident or wrongful shooting stats for permit holders is very very low.

Which is part of the reason as to why I support mandatory training.

One thing that worries me about mandatory training is the potential that exists for an anti-2A government (state or Fed or whatever) to abuse the requirement and force citizens to either pay ridiculous sums for time-consuming training or otherwise make getting permission to carry an unreasonable burden for all the but the wealthy. This is not an unreasonable concern, as we already have cities and states (NYC comes to mind) where getting a permit to simply OWN a gun is extremely difficult and consumes lots of time and resources unless you're wealthy or have connections to the gov't.

Well as long as we have government, there is always the risk of abuse. And I concur that NY is a problem-child in this area. I think that there are sufficient constitutional tests on other rights (speech, religion, voting, etc.) that could be applied to the second amendment. Actually make it like the abortion constitutionality tests. You cannot create obstacles that are unreasonable or would dissuade and individual from seeking their legally supported action.

This is one of the reasons I suggest making it a class in High School. Even if you never plan to own a gun, knowing how they work, how to handle one and unload it and render it safe, and the legalities involved in self-defense cannot possibly be a BAD thing. Just as with Sex-Ed we could allow those with principled objections to "opt out" of the class I suppose...

More like Drivers Ed. You don't have to pass sex-ed to have sex, but you must pass drivers ed to legally drive a car.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Alright. What kind of training should people be required to take in order to be qualified to exercise their right to free speech, who should offer that training, and how much should it cost?

Most importantly, who decides whether or not someone has completed that training satisfactorily? Who has the legal authority to decide whether or not an adult is sufficiently qualified to exercise their Constitutional and human rights?

 

[dabateman]

Alright. What kind of training should people be required to take in order to be qualified to exercise their right to free speech, who should offer that training, and how much should it cost?

Most importantly, who decides whether or not someone has completed that training satisfactorily? Who has the legal authority to decide whether or not an adult is sufficiently qualified to exercise their Constitutional and human rights?

Red Herring. Free speech is only limited in cases of risk of bodily harm. The risk of bodily harm for the second amendment rights is huge thus, training is reasonable. And frankly, I'm down with the NRA sitting down with law enforcement and coming up with a recommendation on what the standards should be. I think that would be best.

But your other examples really don't hold weight as it is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[cpgrad08]

To be frank, this is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever mustered against private arms. You're relatively new and may not be aware that this ludicrous comparison between small arms and nukes has been trashed thoroughly many times here at DP.

There is, quite obviously, a HUGE difference between any firearm, however powerful, and the smallest nuke or other strategic weapons system. It's like comparing a hangnail to open heart surgery, or saying "If we allow people to buy fireworks without special training, we'd have to let them buy plastic explosives by the ton with no questions asked!"

It's just a stupid comparison and totally unreasonable, as well as being a "slippery slope fallacy" of the most egregious kind.

I just got a slightly used 20 kiloton Nuke at the Pawn shop the other day Goshin :mrgreen:

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Free speech isn't licensed. Free speech is limited, but it is limited by the fact that speech which causes bodily harm is a criminal act.

Guns do not cause bodily harm when they are carried, but only when they are fired. Firing a gun in a fashion that causes bodily harm, or that has a high risk of causing bodily harm, is already a criminal act. That is the comparable and reasonable limitation on a man's right to keep and bear arms and to exercise the reasonable defense of his person and property.

 

[lpast]

Easy breezy.... make it a class in high school. They teach Sex Ed, so why not Basic Gun Stuff 101.... :mrgreen:

Are you serious..lol...Goshen I can just picture handgun training added to the curriculum in HS...they dont have enough time to teach them how to read well enough to pass the FCAT...