Your Opinion: Open Carry or Concealed?

[ShoreShooter]

I am no attorney, and am less interested in the fine legal distinctions than what people feel is the right approach for society with regard to the METHOD of carry.

I read Peruta, as a non-lawyer. One of many logical arguments that has me thinking is the logic that, if one accepts that 2A provides the RIGHT for SOME FORM of carry, but that some degree of regulating the manner may be permissible, then states cannot simultaneously ban both concealed and open carry.

Certain old cases argue that concealed carry is nefarious and illicit secret threat, and others it becomes an open threat and affront.

Honestly, this becomes more of an issue as to what society broadly would prefer.

I come down on concealed.

Thoughts?

 

[browning guy]

Any way I want why should I have to choose? I am a free man any law that dictates how I carry arms is ********.

 

[Mr H]

I personally prefer concealed, but either should be good.

But you bring up an important point (and maybe especially in MD).

Should we ever be able to turn the state over and get some form of carry, Time-Place-Manner restrictions will be their Golden Goose, making it nearly impossible to legitimately carry anywhere it might be advantageous to the lawful citizen.

That is, unless we get this boat moving now, and get ahead of the tide we know we'll see.

We can no longer afford to react. These sorts of things can be a long time coming, and will require patience and planning... but the ones who plan best have a shot to win.

 

[august1410]

Either. Why choose? I live in NC where it is warm most of the year. I OC a Colt 1911. No one gives it a second glance because where I live it's commonplace for folks to have guns.

 

[thomfantomas]

Both! open and concealed

 

[johnb007]

I think both should be 100% open to anyone. Different situations call for different carry. At home or the shop, open carry, for sure. Out and about on date night, concealed.

 

[aireyc]

Both, basically for the reasons stated above.

 

[Gryphon]

Any way I want why should I have to choose? I am a free man any law that dictates how I carry arms is ********.

^^ This ^^ It's my right. One of the few that the Constitution guarantees "shall not be infringed." After I have passed all the other infringements why shouldn't I have the option to carry how I feel is best. Why should I have to "hide" or "advertise" that I am exercising my right.

 

[ShoreShooter]

I personally prefer concealed, but either should be good.

But you bring up an important point (and maybe especially in MD).

Should we ever be able to turn the state over and get some form of carry, Time-Place-Manner restrictions will be their Golden Goose, making it nearly impossible to legitimately carry anywhere it might be advantageous to the lawful citizen.

That is, unless we get this boat moving now, and get ahead of the tide we know we'll see.

We can no longer afford to react. These sorts of things can be a long time coming, and will require patience and planning... but the ones who plan best have a shot to win.

Precisely my point. You got there more efficiently than I did.

A societal debate on what form of carry, is at least a debate over what kind of a good thing shall we adopt.

 

[alucard0822]

it's critical that both are lawful, and importantly do not justify suspicion of a crime. Problem is that some states are fairly conservative, some localities want to push their own law despite state pre-emtion for firearms law(as most states have). In practice shall issue and carry laws often times protect citizens from the policies of departments and politicians who essentially try to find pitfalls in the law, basically the opposite of a loophole, where in some instances the law is not uniform, and a person can be charged in a certain scenario while most similar scenarios are legal. If open carry is not legal, there is too much leeway on what constitutes criminal "brandishing", minor printing, taking off or putting on a gun relatively discreetly before entering a "no carry" area, and then there is the convenience of open carry where concealing a certain gun in a certain setting may not be practical.

The same can be said if concealed in unlawful, a jacket partially covering a pistol, seated in a vehicle where it is not visible, standing in a way that obscures the gun etc. The determination that when observed without any other suspicion, carry does not constitute suspicion is what ties it together, and most effectively prevents harassing stop/disarm/frisk from becoming an easy way for localities to discourage legal carry, it opens them up to lawsuits, and in many places has been critical in practice to protect citizens from harassment.

 

[JPG]

The only decision someone should make before they go out the door should be to carry or not to carry.

Open or concelled should only be a personal preference not a law.

 

[ShoreShooter]

it's critical that both are lawful, and importantly do not justify suspicion of a crime. Problem is that some states are fairly conservative, some localities want to push their own law despite state pre-emtion for firearms law(as most states have). In practice shall issue and carry laws often times protect citizens from the policies of departments and politicians who essentially try to find pitfalls in the law, basically the opposite of a loophole, where in some instances the law is not uniform, and a person can be charged in a certain scenario while most similar scenarios are legal. If open carry is not legal, there is too much leeway on what constitutes criminal "brandishing", minor printing, taking off or putting on a gun relatively discreetly before entering a "no carry" area, and then there is the convenience of open carry where concealing a certain gun in a certain setting may not be practical.

The same can be said if concealed in unlawful, a jacket partially covering a pistol, seated in a vehicle where it is not visible, standing in a way that obscures the gun etc. The determination that when observed without any other suspicion, carry does not constitute suspicion is what ties it together, and most effectively prevents harassing stop/disarm/frisk from becoming an easy way for localities to discourage legal carry, it opens them up to lawsuits, and in many places has been critical in practice to protect citizens from harassment.

Excellent point

 

[Draco20]

I agree with all the above. Different situations call for different carry options and I should able to choose which is the best and let now someone else tell me how to exercise that right.

 

[redeemed.man]

I will gladly do whichever is available to me at the time or location I may be. When I travel with a gun I will carry concealed when able to do so. If only open carry is available, I will do so. I will gladly exercise my right to defend myself in any and all ways possible.

 

[highfructosecornsyrup]

You should have a choice. Just like every other freedom we should be enjoying, its all nothing but choices, or at least should be!

You can think well, open carry may intimidate criminals, OR it may make YOU their first goal (get the gun or take you down first etc...)

Concealed may carry an element of surprise to a criminal, and may make them think twice (maybe someone here is packing) or it may make you slower to the draw (unzip your coat or whatever)

I mean both have advantages and disadvantages, I suspect anyone with a permit is responsible enough to decide which time and place suits which option better...

 

[hogarth]

I see few advantages to open carry for a civilian. I would prefer to conceal carry.

 

[Odiferous Maximus]

If Open Carry (handguns) were legal here in Texas, I would still carry concealed. Just my preference.

 

[Tito]

Conceal. Especially, in public. I don't like unwanted attention.

 

[PJS]

I am no attorney, and am less interested in the fine legal distinctions than what people feel is the right approach for society with regard to the METHOD of carry.

I read Peruta, as a non-lawyer. One of many logical arguments that has me thinking is the logic that, if one accepts that 2A provides the RIGHT for SOME FORM of carry, but that some degree of regulating the manner may be permissible, then states cannot simultaneously ban both concealed and open carry.

Certain old cases argue that concealed carry is nefarious and illicit secret threat, and others it becomes an open threat and affront.

Honestly, this becomes more of an issue as to what society broadly would prefer.

I come down on concealed.

Thoughts?

If someone suggested this same question, but replaced the implied 'gun' with 'pencil' we would all think that person was nuts.

That how I feel about the question. I can carry my property (a handgun, a pencil, or a rutabaga) however I wish. The government has no right to use force to make me do otherwise.

 

[spclopr8tr]

Both should be the option of the carrier. I would generally choose concealed, but it depends on the circumstances for the day.