NRA: TX Long Gun Open Carry "weird" and impractical for self defense

[danb]

Novus!

I didn't understand the comment the first time either.

 

[Brooklyn]

In TX accidental exposure of your FA can get you in real trouble. Process to fix it was being made oc tx might have had a small net positive,bit these jokers borked it up.

They will never admit fault and never learn. If they persist criminal trespass citations are in their future. Or worse.. then they will blame everyone else but themselves.

 

[PO2012]

Those good, average Americans generally feel uncomfortable seeing a dozen men strolling about the Starbucks or burger joint with 'assault' weapons on their backs; THAT'S not the way to get a discussion starting with middle Americans. Public displays of arms has not been seen in a generation and comfort with the sight will take some time.

There was a time in this country, well within living memory, when public displays of affection between two men or two women often resulted in public ridicule at best and physical assault or homicide at worst. Major Police Departments used to maintain squads of men who targeted so called "fruits" and would arrest them for propositioning people they found attractive (something they would not have arrested heterosexuals for) or for patronizing establishments that catered to homosexuals and lesbians. There was a case in New York City in the mid twentieth century when a Police Officer arrested every patron in a bar and had the bar padlocked as a public nuisance. When asked by the Judge how he knew that the patrons were practicing homosexuals and that the establishment catered to them, the Officer stated, under oath, that to his disgust he heard two of the men in the bar discussing opera, that "real men" didn't discuss opera and therefore he knew that the bar must be one that catered to homosexuals and that every man in the establishment was intent on engaging in sodomy. I mention the foregoing story because it shows just how harshly and arbitrarily people can be punished for doing something that makes the majority uncomfortable even if the act itself isn't illegal. Had I been a Police Officer 50 or 60 years ago I might well have been ordered to arrest homosexuals. Fortunately that battle was already all but won when I first swore my oath.

I mention homosexuals not to hijack the thread but to make a point about behavior that the majority finds offensive or threatening. Fifty years ago seeing two men or women embracing and engaging in an open mouthed kiss in public, particularly in certain venues or over an extended period of time, would have been treated in much the same way that carrying an AR 15 slung on your back is treated in much of modern day America. Today, however, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would call 911 or physically confront someone engaging in that sort of activity. Many people still shake their heads or disapprove but they keep their comments to themselves for the most part. Reasoned discourse and sensitivity toward the feelings of others isn't what brought about the change in public perception and behavior, it was deliberate, in your face activism that made the difference. A determined, vocal minority said we are going to behave this way and you are going to accept it and we don't care whether or not you like what you see - it's our right and our way of living and if you don't approve we don't care. I grew up in a very liberal metropolitan area and even there the idea that homosexuals would be able to declare themselves publicly, much less get written recognition of their relationships from the state and federal government, was considered outlandish. Yet over time the determined minority I just mentioned prevailed and forced the majority to leave them alone.

The same principle applies to firearms in general and open carry in particular. You are never going to convince everyone of the benefits, much less the necessity, of being armed. For the foreseeable future a substantial portion of the population is going to be hostile toward or afraid of non-military and non-Police they know to be armed in public. If you wait to convert that substantial portion of the population the right to keep and bear arms with either atrophy further or die out in the meantime. Those who don't like to see people carry firearms in public are entitled to their opinion but they must be compelled to respect the rights of others. Private businesses can bar whomever they please (within certain limitations defined by law) and I have no problem with that as there are property rights to consider. No one, however, has the right to be emotionally comfortable or free from displeasure. The right to keep and bear arms is a right no more and certainly no less important than prayer or trial by jury. We should continue to reach out to the public and educate the uniformed but we also need to demand our rights. No struggle is ever won without agitation and no right should be abandoned because coercion was employed to make its exercise unbearable.

 

[pitpawten]

Then I'll reply, though maybe not in a way you'll agree with. I'm not sure, but my opinion is still mine so there's that at least.


I frankly could give less than two shiney, brand new ****s about Open Carry -be it Long Gun or Handgun. It isn't something that I feel the need or want to engage in on a daily basis and have only done it once -while not going beyond the boundaries of my own yard- and for a very particular situation.

I do not view OC as any kind of deterrent, but as a detriment in many cases and in the particular case of LGOC I myself only see it as acecptable if going to and from a range/hunting location. LGOC to establish a defensive posture in every day situation and/or to invoke discussion as to the validity and acceptance of all OC is assinine and counter productive because of the very nature of the weapons many of these men are carrying -namely modern sporting rifles that those with little to no firearms knowledge will find immediately threatening.

I've evidently done a poor job of framing my question as I agree with all points you made above.

My thinking was based on the fact [that Brooklyn had indicated is actually wrong] that the state has chosen LGOC over CC (knowing that LGOC is a horrible idea) becase they have to provide some form of defensive carry.

Believing that the legistlators in MD will give its citizens CC rights because they don't want people to be scared is...well, I'm not even sure if naieve covers it.

Again this was predicated on what appears to be a misunderstanding on my part of how the state determined it was ok to deny CC for defensive carry.

Rather than thinking the legislature would act in the people's interest (people were scared), I was wondering what would be good alternatives to actuall LGOC'ing as a method of getting the non gun-owning population to cry out against LGOC in order to force the legislature to choose the lesser of two evils (in their minds) between LGOC and CC.

If this dilemma doesn't exist (I.e. State doesn't have to choose between LGOC and CC) then my point is moot (as it appears to be).

Same team same team

 

[Brooklyn]

There was a time in this country, well within living memory, when public displays of affection between two men or two women often resulted in public ridicule at best and physical assault or homicide at worst. Major Police Departments used to maintain squads of men who targeted so called "fruits" and would arrest them for propositioning people they found attractive (something they would not have arrested heterosexuals for) or for patronizing establishments that catered to homosexuals and lesbians. There was a case in New York City in the mid twentieth century when a Police Officer arrested every patron in a bar and had the bar padlocked as a public nuisance. When asked by the Judge how he knew that the patrons were practicing homosexuals and that the establishment catered to them, the Officer stated, under oath, that to his disgust he heard two of the men in the bar discussing opera, that "real men" didn't discuss opera and therefore he knew that the bar must be one that catered to homosexuals and that every man in the establishment was intent on engaging in sodomy. I mention the foregoing story because it shows just how harshly and arbitrarily people can be punished for doing something that makes the majority uncomfortable even if the act itself isn't illegal. Had I been a Police Officer 50 or 60 years ago I might well have been ordered to arrest homosexuals. Fortunately that battle was already all but won when I first swore my oath.

I mention homosexuals not to hijack the thread but to make a point about behavior that the majority finds offensive or threatening. Fifty years ago seeing two men or women embracing and engaging in an open mouthed kiss in public, particularly in certain venues or over an extended period of time, would have been treated in much the same way that carrying an AR 15 slung on your back is treated in much of modern day America. Today, however, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would call 911 or physically confront someone engaging in that sort of activity. Many people still shake their heads or disapprove but they keep their comments to themselves for the most part. Reasoned discourse and sensitivity toward the feelings of others isn't what brought about the change in public perception and behavior, it was deliberate, in your face activism that made the difference. A determined, vocal minority said we are going to behave this way and you are going to accept it and we don't care whether or not you like what you see - it's our right and our way of living and if you don't approve we don't care. I grew up in a very liberal metropolitan area and even there the idea that homosexuals would be able to declare themselves publicly, much less get written recognition of their relationships from the state and federal government, was considered outlandish. Yet over time the determined minority I just mentioned prevailed and forced the majority to leave them alone.

The same principle applies to firearms in general and open carry in particular. You are never going to convince everyone of the benefits, much less the necessity, of being armed. For the foreseeable future a substantial portion of the population is going to be hostile toward or afraid of non-military and non-Police they know to be armed in public. If you wait to convert that substantial portion of the population the right to keep and bear arms with either atrophy further or die out in the meantime. Those who don't like to see people carry firearms in public are entitled to their opinion but they must be compelled to respect the rights of others. Private businesses can bar whomever they please (within certain limitations defined by law) and I have no problem with that as there are property rights to consider. No one, however, has the right to be emotionally comfortable or free from displeasure. The right to keep and bear arms is a right no more and certainly no less important than prayer or trial by jury. We should continue to reach out to the public and educate the uniformed but we also need to demand our rights. No struggle is ever won without agitation and no right should be abandoned because coercion was employed to make its exercise unbearable.

So ... is banishing ok? I ask because in at least one photo I saw banishing is a better fit for what they were doing.


I assume you are ok with requiring clothing in public? How about sex acts.. can I fornicate in public why or why not? Once you accept the idea of public as distinct from private and allow any standards to apply you can not in fact negate those standards only discuss what they will be. In TX oc of handguns is prohibited but not long guns. They were making progress on OC of handguns, and then the OC guys "helped " now its well and truly stalled and a ban on oc of riles ( scabbard required ) will be the likely result.

The tx oc guys have long past the point net benefit. No matter what your motivation, no matter how just your cause, when you actions have the effect of undermining it its time to rethink. Or in this case, likely to late..

And had these guys used scabbards most of this would not be an issue in TX.. they managed to concern Texans ...

 

[pitpawten]

This maybe the most delusional statement I have ever heard on this subject. You expect Md to trust you with CC after you have proven that you are willing to be, by your own standards , proactive and dangerous?

No I was not advocating LGOC (did a poor job of clarifying this it appears). my thinking was based on the thought that the AG had successfully suppressed CC for defensive carry via his argument for LGOC which you indicated is actually not the case.

Thats because they did no such thing. The state of MD does not recognize in any way shape or form the right to self defense, and certainly not with a firearm.. The common law, and the Case law based on it is very old-- if you are ever involved in a self defense situation you may learn the hard way-- Its all a big lie-- they lied to the court wow-- imagine that ...

Now really we only get one chance to screw this up.. they can keep screwing up and come back at us again and again.

At least wait until a court actually says that its ok to ban CC if you allow OC-- only The AG said that--- no court has even relied on it. it is a red hearing and if it works - if we take the bait we should loose.

Ive seen the AG quote anumber of times on the forums and was under the impression that it was a deciding factor in the upholding of may issue.

Looks like this is just my misunderstanding (though the fact that he could say this without being laughed/kicked out of office is painful).

I was trying to figure out how to turn this around and leverage the almost universal dislike of everyday LGOC to force CC... Looks like this isn't s viable option as this dilemma doesn't actually exist.

I would say that I'm probably not the only person who incorrectly believed that LGOC is standing in the way of CC. Ive seem a similar line of reasoning among those that actually advocate OCing for political effect. Addressing this point directly with that crowd might net some benefit.

 

[JPG]

Long gun carry happens with no incidents quite a bit. Its when these large groups get together that the media jumps in to cause a panic. When it is one person in an Apple Store, Target, CVS, etc...... nothing.

 

[Brooklyn]

No I was not advocating LGOC (did a poor job of clarifying this it appears). my thinking was based on the thought that the AG had successfully suppressed CC for defensive carry via his argument for LGOC which you indicated is actually not the case.




Ive seen the AG quote anumber of times on the forums and was under the impression that it was a deciding factor in the upholding of may issue.

Looks like this is just my misunderstanding (though the fact that he could say this without being laughed/kicked out of office is painful).

I was trying to figure out how to turn this around and leverage the almost universal dislike of everyday LGOC to force CC... Looks like this isn't s viable option as this dilemma doesn't actually exist.

I would say that I'm probably not the only person who incorrectly believed that LGOC is standing in the way of CC. Ive seem a similar line of reasoning among those that actually advocate OCing for political effect. Addressing this point directly with that crowd might net some benefit.

You are not alone in thinking so ... and many in the opposition are intent in making the claim.. just as they once claimed that the 2a is not an Individual right-- and many still make that claim. I have been trying to say as much for some time.

If and when we are forced by the court into an OC mode of operation we should seriously revisit this question -- right now it is premature IMHO.

Also Heller strongly implies that long guns are not a substitute for Handguns in the home, because they are most suitable to self defense. Thus LGOC could never substitute for CCW of handguns the more so outside the home were portability is a concern to say nothing of over perpetration , even if we take the anti argument at face value.

Th CA9, it also appears the court also did not fall for the OC nonsense, or lack thereof.


In any case LGOC with out a scabbard is more like carrying a pistol at low ready and I think most of us would be alarmed by that, and I know the police would get very interested very quickly -- use a scabbard even where legal .. your day will go much netter than otherwise .

 

[Brooklyn]

Long gun carry happens with no incidents quite a bit. Its when these large groups get together that the media jumps in to cause a panic. When it is one person in an Apple Store, Target, CVS, etc...... nothing.

Hum only one has his hands on the gun and most are slung to the rear.. hum.. I wonder if this is a clue. They are also not in groups, but that may be a coincidence.

I would add a Scabbard but to each his own ...

 

[PO2012]

The problem with fringe groups that refuse to compromise to make progress is that they ensure they stay a minority with little to no influence.

Or they force the march of progress when other means have failed.

On a practical level I'm overjoyed that most states are now shall issue and that Constitutional Carry is no longer confined to Vermont. What concerns me is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms has largely been transformed into a privilege. Whether it's seizing firearms from those subject to a protective order or refusing to issue permits based on previous convictions for petty offenses, the opposition is using every tool at its disposal to see to it that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the fewest number of people possible under the fewest possible circumstances. The only way that the right to keep and bear arms will ever be secure is when it is recognized as being on par with other rights. No court would ever dream of compelling someone to renounce their religious faith upon conviction for a domestic violence misdemeanor, even if the defendant stated under oath that the reason he beat his wife was because, in his opinion and that of his particular denomination, God commanded it. No court would ever hold that the right to remain silent doesn't apply to a person suspected of murder and kidnapping on the grounds that the state has a "compelling interest" when it comes to incarcerating the most heinous of violent offenders and rescuing their victims. Likewise, no court would ever issue a ruling denying a defendant the right to trial by jury on the basis that he didn't fill out the required documents and pay a set fee on a bi-annual basis in order to be granted a permit to exercise the right.

The reason that I feel so strongly on the subject is because I witness firsthand, on a daily basis, the inevitable results of making the right to keep and bear arms and the right to self defense so hopelessly limited, expensive and complicated that the average citizen gives up. We are never going to be able to restore law and order to large portions of this state until decent citizens can carry and use their weapons against violent predators without fear of arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and bankruptcy. Getting witnesses to come forward and testify where I work is damn near impossible. I have decent, hard working people tell me that they would like to help me but that if they do so they will be murdered. I spoke to one individual recently about a group that has committed several homicides and aggravated assaults in the area where I work. This individual described to me a recent incident in which a neighbor politely asked this group of violent, predatory parasites not to come on his property. The group dragged him and his wife into the street, in broad daylight, in front of all of the neighborhood residents and proceeded to beat the man and his wife almost to death before destroying their car. Keep in mind these people weren't attacked because they called the Police. The husband went, hat in hand, to one of the criminals and asked if he could conduct his business elsewhere. Only luck or Divine Providence saved his life. He tried to be reasonable, he tried to achieve victory without resorting to force as the law demanded and it nearly cost him his life and that of his wife. That beating, like so many similar crimes, went unreported. Many others have not been so lucky ending up shot or stabbed and/or having their houses firebombed.

We can ridicule the folks in Texas for being provocative and supposedly setting back the cause by carrying long arms openly all we want. The reality is that there are areas where handguns aren't enough. It is not uncommon to seize rifles and shotguns from gang members, major drug dealers and professional robbers. Taking a stand against these types of predators demands being able to carry a rifle slung over your shoulder in public since these types of criminals are often armed with long guns themselves when they anticipate resistance and usually attack in packs like wild animals. Many on this board have no idea of the type of terror that many of their fellow citizens have to contend with day in and day out. Whole areas are under the de facto control of organized crime. Anything short of effective resistance using deadly force results in death or crippling physical injury. You can't expect the criminal justice system to work as intended without the cooperation of witnesses and you can't expect witnesses to cooperate unless they have a fighting chance when those they testified against come to make an example of them.

I don't expect the right to keep and bear arms to be fully respected anytime soon here in Maryland but what I hope is that we don't lose sight of what, in my opinion, our goal should be: namely, that every peaceable adult be able to carry the arms of his or her choosing openly or concealed with the bare minimum restrictions as to time or place. And by bare minimum, I mean in a courthouse or in a prison.

 

[JPG]

Hum only one has his hands on the gun and most are slung to the rear.. hum.. I wonder if this is a clue. They are also not in groups, but that may be a coincidence.

I would add a Scabbard but to each his own ...

My reaction to the TX group is based on my experiences where no one open carry's. If I lived in a state that allows it, it would be the "norm" and would not think twice about seeing someone in Walmart or JC Penny carrying a rifle.

Is it something I would do in MD where it is supposedly allowed but everyone is scared to do? No. If I lived in a state that this was allowed and was common to see, perhaps as it would be "normal". I have been out west where I was in a restaurant and felt like I was the only person without a pistol attached to my hip. It was unnerving as it was the first time I noticed people actually carrying. I had heard about people walking around with guns down the street in the middle of the day (not crime related ), but living in MD that was a very foreign concept to me.

 

[PO2012]

I assume you are ok with requiring clothing in public? How about sex acts.. can I fornicate in public why or why not?

At the rate we're proceeding, I anticipate the Supreme Court striking down indecent exposure and public lewdness statutes within my lifetime. As far as I've been able to determine each of the thirteen colonies punished consensual sodomy by death at the time of the Declaration of Independence. Consensual sodomy was still listed in the penal law as a crime in New York, one of the most liberal of states, up until its repeal in 2000. Today the Supreme Court has declared consensual sodomy to be a protected activity and struck down all laws against the practice. It's only a matter of time, in my opinion, before any criminal law which doesn't involve force, fraud or a threat to national security or some attempt to engage in said activities is struck down.

 

[Brooklyn]

My reaction to the TX group is based on my experiences where no one open carry's. If I lived in a state that allows it, it would be the "norm" and would not think twice about seeing someone in Walmart or JC Penny carrying a rifle.

Is it something I would do in MD where it is supposedly allowed but everyone is scared to do? No. If I lived in a state that this was allowed and was common to see, perhaps as it would be "normal". I have been out west where I was in a restaurant and felt like I was the only person without a pistol attached to my hip. It was unnerving as it was the first time I noticed people actually carrying. I had heard about people walking around with guns down the street in the middle of the day (not crime related ), but living in MD that was a very foreign concept to me.

I saw a few oc folks oc handguns in PA. reaction -- who is this guy and what is he doing.. First handgun was in a low quality holster nylon with a retention strap. But since it was holstered it was not a threat. The guy was wired a bit and looked a bit nervous soon calmed down when the pack of smokes was delivered -- problem solved

The key is to track the possible threat -- which is not the gun.- its the guy behind it One day folks will get that. On the other hand what if it was not in a holster at all-- well that's what some of these oc are doing when slung front with their hands on the grip.. it does not matter what most of then do-- it only takes one idiot.

If we do this methodically we can make OC ok, maybe not common, but ok. but we need to at least understand that we need to tone it down as we acclimate folks -- these guys did not do that and we pay the price-- our job just got harder while these " heroes" pat themselves on the back. That pisses me off-- it should piss us all off.


We don't have time for self inflicted wounds ....

 

[kcbrown]

In any case LGOC with out a scabbard is more like carrying a pistol at low ready and I think most of us would be alarmed by that, and I know the police would get very interested very quickly -- use a scabbard even where legal .. your day will go much netter than otherwise .

It's not the scabbard that makes the difference, it's whether the arm is carried in such a way that it appears to have been deployed.

LGOC with the firearm slung across your back is clearly not threatening in the same way that LGOC with your hand on the grip and the firearm positioned in a low-ready stance is. If these OC idiots had kept the rifles on their backs and left them there, there might not have been as much of a problem. I stress "might" because at the end of the day, it is the media that is intentionally drawing attention to this, and the media is owned and operated by the enemy.


At the end of the day, though, it is on those who wish to carry openly to do so in such a way that it is clearly non-threatening. The standard military carry mode of an AR-15, with hand on the grip and positioned in a low-ready stance, is most certainly not that -- it is equivalent to having your pistol drawn and held in a low-ready stance.

 

[Brooklyn]

It's not the scabbard that makes the difference, it's whether the arm is carried in such a way that it appears to have been deployed.

LGOC with the firearm slung across your back is clearly not threatening in the same way that LGOC with your hand on the grip and the firearm positioned in a low-ready stance is. If these OC idiots had kept the rifles on their backs and left them there, there might not have been as much of a problem. I stress "might" because at the end of the day, it is the media that is intentionally drawing attention to this, and the media is owned and operated by the enemy.


At the end of the day, though, it is on those who wish to carry openly to do so in such a way that it is clearly non-threatening. The standard military carry mode of an AR-15, with hand on the grip and positioned in a low-ready stance, is most certainly not that -- it is equivalent to having your pistol drawn and held in a low-ready stance.

Well ,be that as it may, a scabbard would allow even idiots who like to sling front, to do so in a non threatening manner.. Slug front is also a retention position and will prevent a gun grab and should you need to touch or maneuver the firearm you can do so in a "safe" way.


If this idiocy continues scabbard will become mandatory and we will be glad we did not face a total ban on OC-- it sure does not look like the court is in hurry now does it.?

 

[JPG]

One State up from TX: Not rifles but group of open carrying pistols.

Moms Demand Action kicked out of Chipolte - Oklahoma Open Carry Association stays and gets free drinks (I assume nonalcoholic).

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/t...nti-gunners-moms-demand-action-rude-behavior/

 

[krucam]

In TX accidental exposure of your FA can get you in real trouble. Process to fix it was being made oc tx might have had a small net positive,bit these jokers borked it up.

They will never admit fault and never learn. If they persist criminal trespass citations are in their future. Or worse.. then they will blame everyone else but themselves.

Minor correction, the "failure to conceal" was rephrased last session (2013) to a more rational "intentionally displays", thankfully.

Senate Bill 299 specifically:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Legal/newlegislation.htm

 

[Brooklyn]

Minor correction, the "failure to conceal" was rephrased last session (2013) to a more rational "intentionally displays", thankfully.

Senate Bill 299 specifically:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Legal/newlegislation.htm

Thank god, glad I am out of date on my info.. I missed that, but I heard something was afoot. Has that now become law (signed etc ) ?

 

[krucam]

Thank god, glad I am out of date on my info.. I missed that, but I heard something was afoot. Has that now become law (signed etc ) ?

Yep, effective as of 9/1/2013.

 

[2AHokie]

Lots of BGOS on display in this thread. Sadly it's to be expected from Marylanders that wouldn't know freedom if it slapped them in the face.

LGOC is not the issue. OC in general is not an issue (spend some time in VA if you disagree). The only issue is OC on private property that doesn't want you to OC and then making a spectacle out of it.

The real causes of this problem are ignorant property and business owners with hoplophobia (not OCers), but the best short-term solution is to take yourself, your OC, and your business elsewhere. Let them reap the fruits of being a disarmed victim zone.