OC vs CC in Maryland

Just wondering if a bill was passed that allowed regular citizens to OC firearms (handguns only) and only allow undercover, private detectives, retired and active law enforcement personnel the option to CC how many of you would be okay with that and why or why not?

I prefer CC, but if OC was the only option, you bet your ass I'd be holstered up...

And your poll question is what exactly? Do we prefer open carry versus concealed carry? Would be for or against the proposed law you are talking about?

What exactly is the proposed law you are talking about? Concealed Carry for law enforcement, et al, and Open Carry for all law abiding citizens without the need for G&S, without the need to apply for Open Carry, without the need to provide fingerprints and go through an additional background check? Without doing anything else, if I could just put a holster on my belt and walk out of the house tomorrow with a loaded handgun legally in that holster, I would be all for it and would be fine with law enforcement, et al. being allowed to carry concealed.

If open carry were only option.....bet the farm I would be OC.
Would prefer concealed though.

If a bill was passed...

fabsroman said:

And your poll question is what exactly? Do we prefer open carry versus concealed carry? Would be for or against the proposed law you are talking about?

What exactly is the proposed law you are talking about? Concealed Carry for law enforcement, et al, and Open Carry for all law abiding citizens without the need for G&S, without the need to apply for Open Carry, without the need to provide fingerprints and go through an additional background check? Without doing anything else, if I could just put a holster on my belt and walk out of the house tomorrow with a loaded handgun legally in that holster, I would be all for it and would be fine with law enforcement, et al. being allowed to carry concealed.

Click to expand...

The fingerprint and background issue would have already been taken care of via the HQL process. maybe shorten the renewal time from 10 years to every year and anyone who chooses to OC MUSt take a basic or advanced self defense and mandatory gun safety course with a certified instructor twice per year (every 6 months), the certification number can be electronically linked to your HQL via MSP..........

Unknown User said:

The fingerprint and background issue would have already been taken care of via the HQL process. maybe shorten the renewal time from 10 years to every year and anyone who chooses to OC MUSt take a basic or advanced self defense and mandatory gun safety course with a certified instructor twice per year (every 6 months), the certification number can be electronically linked to your HQL via MSP..........

Click to expand...

Uh - no.

Unknown User said:

The fingerprint and background issue would have already been taken care of via the HQL process. maybe shorten the renewal time from 10 years to every year and anyone who chooses to OC MUSt take a basic or advanced self defense and mandatory gun safety course with a certified instructor twice per year (every 6 months), the certification number can be electronically linked to your HQL via MSP..........

Click to expand...

OH eff that. Make it so cumbersome no one will do it. I am all for training but it should be a 1 shot thing.

Unknown User said:

The fingerprint and background issue would have already been taken care of via the HQL process. maybe shorten the renewal time from 10 years to every year and anyone who chooses to OC MUSt take a basic or advanced self defense and mandatory gun safety course with a certified instructor twice per year (every 6 months), the certification number can be electronically linked to your HQL via MSP..........

Click to expand...

Usually, I don't want to be the guy, but this is a rather bizarre poll coming from somebody with 10 posts. I think I understand the general concept that you are trying to get at, but you are missing a lot of details in your proposed law.

What about those of us that own handguns and don't have the HQL. Believe it or not, a lot of handguns were sold and transferred before October 1, 2013. Would we have to get an HQL to open carry?

Why not Open Carry for all lawful gun owners simply on the fact that a person is a lawful gun owner with no additional hoops to jump through. Concealed carry for those that want to go the extra mile.

Me, I think it should be concealed carry for any lawful gun owner with a simple online registration, and even then, not so sure I'm alright with the entire online registration. If I can own a firearm legally, I should be able to carry that firearm outside of my house for my own protection and the protection of my family.

jrumann59 said:

OH eff that. Make it so cumbersome no one will do it. I am all for training but it should be a 1 shot thing.

Click to expand...

While I agree that training is a good thing, should I be required to complete it to exercise a constitutional right?

Just some food for thought.

'04 Cummins said:

I prefer CC, but if OC was the only option, you bet your ass I'd be holstered up...

Click to expand...

Hello mysterious low-count poster...Your question doesn't properly get the point across. Here are few more that need clarification.

1) Would you open carry if it was the only means of carry in md?

Yes, I would absolutely open carry everywhere that is was legal.

2) Would you be happy with open carry in md?

Hells no. It is necessary to have BOTH open AND concealed carry as legal options. Most people prefer to carry concealed in order to avoid attention. They don't want to be "SWAT'd" with a MWAG call from hoplophobes, and they don't want criminals attempting to "get the jump" on them. They want to have the best tool for self defense, but fly under the radar. Most all proponents of the ability to carry most wish to be left alone and blend into a crowd. We absolutely aren't out to be vigilantes or look for a fight. The ability to conceal helps us achieve "grey-man" status and blend.

It's also important to have both OC and CC to protect us legally. We don't want to only have CC....then get charged with "brandishing" because our gun showed out from under our shirt when we reached for a jar of honey at the supermarket. We also don't want to be carrying our kid's car-seat while OC'ing and be charged with illegal CC because the car-seat concealed the firearm. Having both gives us the ability to choose which method of carry is the most appropriate for our circumstances and gives us legal protections.

3) Do you think OC or CC is a better method of carry(assuming both are legal) and why?

Carrying a firearm for defense is a very personal thing and should be differentiated for not only the individual, but the circumstances in which they will be carrying. Factors going in to which will be "better" include comfort, the type of gun, the season, the activity, the location, the need to quickly access it, and just personal preference. Generally, open carry is much more comfortable and much easier to quickly access the firearm. It's part of the reason police open carry(along with projecting authority). Some people also enjoy "normalizing" firearms within the community by carrying. When people see elementary school teachers(I am one), bankers, military, shopkeeps, librarians, pastors, soccer moms...etc carrying around them without incident, firearms become commonplace tools, such as a chainsaw, kitchen knife, or baseball bat.

Other people prefer to think "tactically", or just prefer to be a grey-man and choose to conceal. For them, they do not want to give up the element of surprise to a threat. If they are in a bank, and a potential bank-robber is in the room with them, they don't want that bank robber to know that he/she needs to take out the law-abiding citizen with a gun during their robbery. They also may not want criminals to sneak up on them and "get the jump" on them, then take their firearm. Another consideration is the hoplophobes that are scared of guns. They don't want some "moms demand action" lunatic calling the police and reporting a "man with a gun" as they try to shop while OC'ing, go to the movies, or do anything else they'd normally do.

And there's those that would do either, depending on circumstances. If they're doing yardwork, they may open carry. If they're going to dinner and the movies, maybe they'd conceal. If they want to carry their full-sized pistol in the heat of the summer, they may open carry, or if they prefer their sub-compact in winter, they'd conceal. It's really dependent on their mood and the situation they will be in, and they're trained to carry in either manner.

4) Are you ok with the idea that there are different "classes" of people with different rights?

Again, hells no. The 2A reads as follows....

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.

Click to expand...

.....the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Our nation operates under the law and with the assumption that all men are created equal. In america, no animal is "more equal" than another. Our right to keep and bear arms in inalienable, endowed by our creator, and SHALL NOT be infringed upon by the state.

By setting up privileged classes of people that have more rights than others, we've violated the very principles that our nation is founded upon. Imagine if only police/security guards/military were allowed to vote, have freedom of speech, or exercise freedom of religion. The 2A is the same, it is an inalienable right and any tiered system of infringements is still a system of infringements, which the state SHALL NOT do.

In this respect, mandatory training, licensing, and an application process are all infringements and should not be tolerated. It's in much the same way that we should not tolerate mandatory training(at our own expense), licensing, and an application process in order to exercise our 1A rights, or 4A, or 5A...

5) Without mandatory licensing, training, and an application process, how will we keep people from committing gun crimes?

...by not limiting ourselves to "gun crimes". Instead, approach it as "crime". It makes no difference to the murder victim if they were killed with a gun, a screwdriver, bare fists, a bomb, or a car...the criminal act is still murder. That should be enough. The victim of a robbery doesn't care which tool the robber used against them, they are still robbed. We have laws on the books right now to address any act by one individual that infringes on the rights of another in our society, we need to start using them and enforcing them instead of creating more meaningless laws for a revolving-door justice system.

Also, the majority of crimes against others are committed by a VERY small minority of our population. Criminals are just plain outnumbered by law-abiding citizens. The problem today is that law-abiding citizens are outgunned so to speak. The law-abiding follow carry laws and walk around maryland unarmed and largely defenseless. The criminals don't obey laws by very definition and are the ones carrying. If we remove the infringements against the 2A right to BEAR arms, law-abiding will be able to defend themselves....since they largely outnumber the criminal element, it puts a large disincentive(potentially losing your life) on choosing criminal behaviors. In pretty much every state that has liberalized their carry laws, violent crimes have plummeted. Recently due to attacks domestically, both russia and isreal have liberalized their carry laws to better enable their people to be more self-sufficient in their own defense. It's a no-brainer.

6) Do you honestly think md politicians will vote to give md'ers the ability to conceal carry?

They do not have a choice. Maryland WILL be a shall-issue state and we WILL have the right to bear arms. Momentum and the law are both on our side. the 2A is winning in the courts and it is only a matter of time before litigation gives us the ability to carry. We have learned lessons from other civil rights movements and are following their example.

Of course, momentum is also in our favor in the general assembly. Any politician who is smart and doesn't want to be booted will recognize their constituency's inalienable 2A rights and will vote to enable them to be self-sufficient in their own defense. If not, we will continue to show up every election cycle and remove them from office like we did in the 2014 elections. Our side is gathering momentum and every coming election we will remove more and more pro-2A infringment politicians. The ones that aren't removed will be forced to spend more money and time to keep their seats.

The pro2A side is getting more organized and we are better understanding how to win elections. We've studied alinsky's playbook and are using it against the system. Maryland polticians will get on board with our side or will be removed, simple as that.

Sooo...considering the above post, you need to change the poll and give more options.

"I will be happy with OC only"
"I will be happy with CC only"
"I will be happy only with both OC and CC"
"I will not be happy until all 2A infringments are removed"

I don't know how to Change the poll to add more options but your response was very informative, thank you for helping me to understand..

Unknown User said:

I don't know how to Change the poll to add more options but your response was very informative, thank you for helping me to understand..

Click to expand...

No problem. Let me know if you have any other questions where I can attempt to be of assistance.

Well if it were OC one could strap a 44 Walker on his goobers and gals would point and gasp at the sheer bulk.

BlackBart said:

Well if it were OC one could strap a 44 Walker on his goobers and gals would point and gasp at the sheer bulk.

Click to expand...

interesting sidenote about historic cap and ball revolvers...in COMAR, there may be an odd grey area where open carry is technically legal and falls under similar law as if you were to carry a fixed-blade knife. Theoretically, there's an argument that you can actually strap on a holster with loaded-up cap and ball revolvers for open carry because it's not restricted by carry laws that deal with handguns...since it's explicitly defines as NOT being a handgun. Figured it was worth mentioning.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mdcode/

smokey0118 said:

interesting sidenote about historic cap and ball revolvers...in COMAR, there may be an odd grey area where open carry is technically legal and falls under similar law as if you were to carry a fixed-blade knife. Theoretically, there's an argument that you can actually strap on a holster with loaded-up cap and ball revolvers for open carry because it's not restricted by carry laws that deal with handguns...since it's explicitly defines as NOT being a handgun. Figured it was worth mentioning.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mdcode/
View attachment 137043

Click to expand...

Lol, has anyone tempted fate yet?

While I'd prefer CC most of the time, I would have no problem with OC if it were my only option.

Unknown User said:

The fingerprint and background issue would have already been taken care of via the HQL process. maybe shorten the renewal time from 10 years to every year and anyone who chooses to OC MUSt take a basic or advanced self defense and mandatory gun safety course with a certified instructor twice per year (every 6 months), the certification number can be electronically linked to your HQL via MSP..........

Click to expand...

Hell no

But I would rather conceal carry, but wouldnt mind open carry either. Aslong as I could carry period and beable to defend my family