Open Carry vs Concealed Carry

[CPT Ethanolic]

I can see use for both, and support same, mostly for comfort during "outdoorsy" kinds of activities. The rest of the time, CC would be fine by me.



They should respect your rights in the same manner.

I really could care less that others are "afraid" of guns, as I did nothing to cause that.

Some people are afraid of dogs. Should you not walk your dog on a city street because of that?

Personally, I have a completely irrational fear of ducks and/or geese. Kill 'em all so's I won't be afraid...

I take my dog out, but I keep him on a leash when people are around. My dog doesn't bite - I know that. But others don't. So others might have an irrational fear of my dog. It's courtesy to keep him on a leash.

 

[CPT Ethanolic]

Food for thought, if you truly are a "gun packing liberal". Substitute "Gays", "Interracial Marriage" or "any religion not predominant in your area" for "guns" in your above statements about your "rights" and the "rights" of others and see how it sounds.

You're misunderstanding what I was saying. I'm talking about both the constitutional "right" to carry as well as a persons individual "right" to disagree with me. To your substitution of words theory, I guess a good analogy to my opinion about open carry is my opinion on gay pride parades. I don't care if somebody is gay, and it's their right to hold a parade where guys are marching down the street wearing leather assless chaps and tutus. But, in my opinion, unnecessarily pushing your "rights" in the faces of people who might not agree with you is not going to help your cause. Things like gay pride parades unnecessarily antagonize the anti-gay segments of the population and likely delay the 'equal marriage rights' that many gays are fighting for. Likewise, a bunch of people with visible weapons unnecessarily antagonizes the anti-gun crowd and will likely fire them up to seek additional weapons bans. Again, in my opinion, I don't see a benefit to open carry that would justify the fact that many are going to be upset by it. We can't even conceal-carry here in MD, showing that there are a lot of people who strongly disagree with our opinion on guns (and yes, I'm aware that we have a constitutional right, but that doesn't change the facts). If we do win the right to carry and people start open carrying while shopping around Bethesda, you're going to see an even bigger push back to remove those rights again.

 

[Safetech]

My dog doesn't bite - I know that. But others don't. So others might have an irrational fear of my dog. It's courtesy to keep him on a leash.

Spoken as a true liberal: If others have an irrational fear, cater to it. Even if it means giving up your own rights to do so.


BTW - ALL dogs will bit under the right circumstances. So the above is a bad analogy.

OTOH - The .45 on my side isn't going to bite anyone unless I draw it. And I will only draw it if necessary.

I guess a good analogy to my opinion about open carry is my opinion on gay pride parades. I don't care if somebody is gay, and it's their right to hold a parade where guys are marching down the street wearing leather assless chaps and tutus. But, in my opinion, unnecessarily pushing your "rights" in the faces of people who might not agree with you is not going to help your cause. Things like gay pride parades unnecessarily antagonize the anti-gay segments of the population and likely delay the 'equal marriage rights' that many gays are fighting for. Likewise, a bunch of people with visible weapons unnecessarily antagonizes the anti-gun crowd and will likely fire them up to seek additional weapons bans. Again, in my opinion, I don't see a benefit to open carry that would justify the fact that many are going to be upset by it. .

While I agree with you *in part* on this, again, it's a bad analogy.

(Speaking for myself here) If my sole purpose for wanting the ***option*** to OC was to "make a point", and be "in your face" with it, then yes that could very well result in a backlash by those who would want to restrict MY right because of THEIR irrational fear.

But my choice to OC ***IF I felt it appropriate under given circumstances***, is not to "make a point". It is IMO for my personal protection (preemptiveness) or personal PHYSICAL comfort.

Under those circumstances, my right to protect myself the way I see fit or not be *physically* uncomfortable, out weighs their right to be *emotionally* comfortable because of their own irrational fears.

 

[CPT Ethanolic]

Spoken as a true liberal: If others have an irrational fear, cater to it. Even if it means giving up your own rights to do so.


BTW - ALL dogs will bit under the right circumstances. So the above is a bad analogy.

OTOH - The .45 on my side isn't going to bite anyone unless I draw it. And I will only draw it if necessary.




While I agree with you *in part* on this, again, it's a bad analogy.

(Speaking for myself here) If my sole purpose for wanting the ***option*** to OC was to "make a point", and be "in your face" with it, then yes that could very well result in a backlash by those who would want to restrict MY right because of THEIR irrational fear.

But my choice to OC ***IF I felt it appropriate under given circumstances***, is not to "make a point". It is IMO for my personal protection (preemptiveness) or personal PHYSICAL comfort.

Under those circumstances, my right to protect myself the way I see fit or not be *physically* uncomfortable, out weighs their right to be *emotionally* comfortable because of their own irrational fears.

You know, if everyone utilized EVERY right afforded them, we'd live in a pretty shiatty society. I have the 'right' to be an ass and not let somebody merge when their lane closes on the freeway. I also have the 'right' to speed all the way up and cut in at the last minute. I have the 'right' to go around saying offensive things. I have the 'right' to drive 55 mph in the far left lane. I have the 'right' to report my neighbors to the HOA when their grass gets long.

I use open carry if I'm in the woods or somewhere with just friends of mine. If I'm at a grocery store however, it takes minor effort to conceal carry vs open carry. I'm still executing my right to carry and giving a very minor concession to those who are anti-gun. In my mind, I'm not "giving up my rights". I'm making a minor concession to KEEP my rights. Trust me, you start having people grocery shopping with pistols on their hips, the anti-gun crowd will push for a complete ban. And just because you call it an "irrational fear" of guns, doesn't mean that a lot of people don't fear them - and those people have a right to vote. You can maintain that you have a constitutional right to carry a gun, but that doesn't mean it can't be taken away by those with irrational fears, as we've seen in many states and cities.

 

[Safetech]

Remember (earlier post) I used shopping and going out to dinner, as an example of where I would probably NOT OC, even if I could.

OTOH, I gave an example of OCing if I had to work in a "bad area" or (in another post) potentially high risk situation - strictly as a "warning" to potential treats, before they become actual threats.

As much as I hate to agree with a self proclaimed "liberal", I have to admit that we do agree on some points. (But your analogies, IMVHO, are still off)

 

[MDMOUNTAINEER]

You're misunderstanding what I was saying. I'm talking about both the constitutional "right" to carry as well as a persons individual "right" to disagree with me.

The right exists whether nor not someone else approves. A compelling argument can be made that if a person comes in contact with people, who over time prove to be respectful and courteous, and happen to be armed, their perception of someone who is armed may then change.

You however proffered that there is "only one reason" for someone to open carry a gun. I'm not sure what you were inferring but the connotation was negative. I can assure you that good people carry openly without any inherent mental defect and that the act itself is rather benign to many. You seem to take a different stance and that's fine, but it doesn't make you right.

The bottom line is that our second ammendment was eroded because people started putting their guns in closets and cabinets, rarely took them out, and never in public. They stopped talking about them, stopped using them, and before you know it they started to lose their importance to the mainstream. A fickle and ignorant public then chose to demonize them and we've inherited the unconstitutional gun laws we are fighting now. Recent history has proven that guns DO have a place in society and as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, we have a RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR them. It's really that simple. And it doesn't rely on the social acceptance of the right, the right still exists.

leather assless chaps and tutus.

The very nature of a chap makes them "assless". Sorta like a round circle.

But, in my opinion, unnecessarily pushing your "rights" in the faces of people who might not agree with you is not going to help your cause.

I can respect your right to disagree, however it was this behavior that got us where we are. If people had remained armed and vocal about preserving their rights (both in action and word) then the perception wouldn't have changed in the first place.

Things like gay pride parades unnecessarily antagonize the anti-gay segments of the population and likely delay the 'equal marriage rights' that many gays are fighting for.

I disagree with you on this as well. I firmly believe that homosexuality has gained increasing acceptance because there has been MORE exposure to mainstream. When homosexuality was villified, ignored, or worse, there was no chance for any understanding or acceptance. When homosexuality was forced into the public conscience, and homosexual activists promoted their values and goals, the public perception has changed. The gay community continues to make great strides and I applaud them for their efforts.

Likewise, a bunch of people with visible weapons unnecessarily antagonizes the anti-gun crowd and will likely fire them up to seek additional weapons bans.

The adult equivalent to a toddlers temper tantrum. This is purely reactionary without any basis in fact. What people need is to be educated. We as a society have become reactionary to the point that it's almost as if we resist acknowledgement of fact completely only to embrace the purely emotional and unenlightened "perception".

Well, I'm not a sheep and I cannot control what you or anyone else think of me. To even consider that possible is absurd. As such, I will do what I know is right and if that day I happen to be openly carrying a gun and someone wants the throw a temper tantrum, have at it. But those folks will not be my societal, ethical, or moral barometer.

Besides, this logic is further hampered by the increasing exposure to gun culture via acknowledgement of or 2A rights in MOST states (which probably includes some people open carrying. Hell there was a huge OC movement in WI and you see how their laws changed for the better), television, sites like this. Our ranks of 2A supporters has grown in leaps and bounds because people stopped ignoring and/or villifying firearms. There are more female shooters than ever before. There are more training venues than ever before. The times are changing and I can't believe anyone would cater to the ignorance of factions of our society and use that as their primary rationale as to why they should NOT open carry a firearm.

Again, in my opinion, I don't see a benefit to open carry that would justify the fact that many are going to be upset by it. We can't even conceal-carry here in MD

Your propensity to value your or other's actions based on your perceived notion of society's acceptance is your business. But not everyone is concerned about what other people think of their actions. There was once a time when black people couldn't sit on certain parts of a bus, use certain bathrooms, or hang out in certain places. But they started pushing the envelope. Sure, some of them got into trouble. Some even died. But as a society we were forced to re-evaluate what had become standard practice for so long. Because a brave few stood up, they paved the way for the rest. Did some white (and probably black too) get upset by the actions of these "rebels"? Of course. Were there attempts at further restrictions? Of course. Did they work? Nope and thank GOD for that. Thank GOD for the courage of the few to make the ignorant question themselves. Thank GOD for the brave nonconformists who made society change without allowing society to change them.

showing that there are a lot of people who strongly disagree with our opinion on guns (and yes, I'm aware that we have a constitutional right, but that doesn't change the facts).

You again contradict yourself. We have a RIGHT, that's the only fact. Been proven time and time again in court. It's plain as day in the BILL OF RIGHTS. That's a fact. Someone's personal opinions and perceptions are not fact.

If we do win the right to carry and people start open carrying while shopping around Bethesda, you're going to see an even bigger push back to remove those rights again.

We don't need to "win" any rights. We already have them, though they've been eroded by people playing to an irrational society's fiddle for so long, but they still exist and when challenged they have been upheld. I think as far as a "push back", recent history is proving that "push" to be almost negligable.

In conclusion, you and only you can determine what type of second ammendment supporter you are. If that means you put society's perception ahead of your own values or ethics, that's fine. But who do you think you are to tell me or anyone else they are wrong for practicing their beliefs publicly?

 

[teratos]

I use open carry if I'm in the woods or somewhere with just friends of mine. If I'm at a grocery store however, it takes minor effort to conceal carry vs open carry. I'm still executing my right to carry and giving a very minor concession to those who are anti-gun. In my mind, I'm not "giving up my rights". I'm making a minor concession to KEEP my rights. Trust me, you start having people grocery shopping with pistols on their hips, the anti-gun crowd will push for a complete ban. And just because you call it an "irrational fear" of guns, doesn't mean that a lot of people don't fear them - and those people have a right to vote. You can maintain that you have a constitutional right to carry a gun, but that doesn't mean it can't be taken away by those with irrational fears, as we've seen in many states and cities.

Ah, this illustrates the problem with your approach to this. You DO NOT NEED to make ANY concessions to keep your rights. It doesn't matter that people have irrational fears, not when you are dealing with a fundamental right. The only way to vote away a Constitutional right is the pass a Constitutional amendment. I doubt you are going to get a 3/4 majority to do away with the 2A. Know why? It goes back to the purpose of the 2A in the first place. Self defense was one of the reasons. Defense against tyranny is another. Most States are "shall issue". Many States allow OC. Not a single one has had their Right "taken away by those with irrational fears".

You have mentioned the military and police a couple of times. Read the Bill of Rights and tell me which percentage of the BoR was intended to protect us against the police and military. We the People are NOT the police and military. You are not thinking about this correctly. Stick around, though we are here to help.

 

[MDMOUNTAINEER]

I'm still executing my right to carry and giving a very minor concession to those who are anti-gun. In my mind, I'm not "giving up my rights". .

Remember that Liberty is eroded a little at a time. Every time you make a concession contrary to your right, you play into that erosion.

I'm going to leave you with some quotes to ponder.

“"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." -Samuel Adams”

“Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain”-JFK


“When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.”-Thomas Paine

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of liberty must undergo the fatigues of supporting it”-Thomas Paine

 

[Marylandfisherman]

I take my dog out, but I keep him on a leash when people are around. My dog doesn't bite - I know that. But others don't. So others might have an irrational fear of my dog. It's courtesy to keep him on a leash.

Dogs on leash's can and do still bite people, every day, of their own accord. A gun in a holster do not, on their own, jump out and shoot people. Just sayin'...

 

[CPT Ethanolic]

Ah, this illustrates the problem with your approach to this. You DO NOT NEED to make ANY concessions to keep your rights. It doesn't matter that people have irrational fears, not when you are dealing with a fundamental right. The only way to vote away a Constitutional right is the pass a Constitutional amendment. I doubt you are going to get a 3/4 majority to do away with the 2A. Know why? It goes back to the purpose of the 2A in the first place. Self defense was one of the reasons. Defense against tyranny is another. Most States are "shall issue". Many States allow OC. Not a single one has had their Right "taken away by those with irrational fears".

You have mentioned the military and police a couple of times. Read the Bill of Rights and tell me which percentage of the BoR was intended to protect us against the police and military. We the People are NOT the police and military. You are not thinking about this correctly. Stick around, though we are here to help.

You all keep talking about "constitutional rights", yet how many of you have a conceal carry permit in MD? I certainly can't get one. It's all fine and dandy to proclaim your "right" to carry a gun - and I'll agree with you - but that doesn't change the facts. Fact: There are a LOT of anti-gun people out there who would LOVE to see a nationwide and complete ban on firearms. Now, you can say all you want that that is unconstitutional, but I would also say that MDs "may issue" law is unconstitutional - but it's still the law and it's the law because of anti-gun people.

My only point is this - open carry when done in a public place only serves to inflame the anti-gun crowd. We don't need this. The anti-gun crowd has already demonstrated that they don't care about your constitutional rights, and they've shown that they can win. Concealed carry = out of sight/out of mind. Sometimes concessions are made to "keep" our freedoms. Kind of like speed limits. I like being able to drive a car, therefore I make the concession that I will drive within set societal limits and in so doing we can preserve that right.

 

[teratos]

You all keep talking about "constitutional rights", yet how many of you have a conceal carry permit in MD? I certainly can't get one. It's all fine and dandy to proclaim your "right" to carry a gun - and I'll agree with you - but that doesn't change the facts. Fact: There are a LOT of anti-gun people out there who would LOVE to see a nationwide and complete ban of firearms. Now, you can say all you want that that is unconstitutional, but I would also say that MDs "may issue" law is unconstitutional - but it's still the law and it's the law because of anti-gun people.

My only point is this - open carry when done in a public place only serves to inflame the anti-gun crowd. We don't need this. The anti-gun crowd has already demonstrated that they don't care about your constitutional rights, and they've shown that they can win. Concealed carry = out of sight/out of mind. Sometimes concessions are made to "keep" our freedoms. Kind of like speed limits. I like being able to drive a car, therefore I make the concession that I will drive within set societal limits and in so doing we can preserve that right.

I have a MD permit. We (MSI, the People of MD) are all working to change MD's unconstitutional laws. We are going about it the correct way, through the proper legal channels. If you have taken the time to read judge Legg's decision, you will see we have won a major battle. People are under no obligation to follow an unconstitutional law, but we CHOOSE to do so while we fight to change it. Driving a car is privilege. You cannot equate the two. I see nothing in the Constitution about driving.

 

[Blaster229]

Rights or no rights, just bad tactics to carry open. Keep it covered, keep your advantage.

 

[CPT Ethanolic]

I have a MD permit. We (MSI, the People of MD) are all working to change MD's unconstitutional laws. We are going about it the correct way, through the proper legal channels. If you have taken the time to read judge Legg's decision, you will see we have won a major battle. People are under no obligation to follow an unconstitutional law, but we CHOOSE to do so while we fight to change it. Driving a car is privilege. You cannot equate the two. I see nothing in the Constitution about driving.

There are a lot of people who do not believe that the 2nd amendment gives everyone a right to carry a firearm. Unfortunately, the constitution is and always has been interpreted. You and I are in agreement about what the 2nd amendment says. But there are plenty of others who read it differently and will seek to have their views be the law.

 

[teratos]

There are a lot of people who do not believe that the 2nd amendment gives everyone a right to carry a firearm. Unfortunately, the constitution is and always has been interpreted.

There are people who understand what the Constitution says, and there are people who are wrong. The Constitution is NOT a living document, any more than the 10 Commandments are. It means what it says.

 

[CPT Ethanolic]

There are people who understand what the Constitution says, and there are people who are wrong. The Constitution is NOT a living document, any more than the 10 Commandments are. It means what it says.

Were you paying attention to the commerce clause arguments during the health care debate? The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that you can't grow marijuana in CA - although I'm sure the founders didn't think that's what it meant when they wrote it. You can't claim that the constitution is simple black/white and not open to interpretation. There are plenty out there who will emphasize the first part of the 2nd (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...) vs the second part (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed), and thereby say that only those in a state militia have a right to keep/bear arms. Again, I wouldn't agree with that, but it's an argument that has been made.

 

[Inigoes]

Were you paying attention to the commerce clause arguments during the health care debate? The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that you can't grow marijuana in CA - although I'm sure the founders didn't think that's what it meant when they wrote it. You can't claim that the constitution is simple black/white and not open to interpretation. There are plenty out there who will emphasize the first part of the 2nd (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...) vs the second part (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed), and thereby say that only those in a state militia have a right to keep/bear arms. Again, I wouldn't agree with that, but it's an argument that has been made.

The 2A militia argument has been lost in Heller

 

[CPT Ethanolic]

The 2A militia argument has been lost in Heller

Lost because of a judicial interpretation of the 2A. But, as we've seen with the commerce clause in the ACA debate, interpretations can change.

 

[teratos]

Were you paying attention to the commerce clause arguments during the health care debate? The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean that you can't grow marijuana in CA - although I'm sure the founders didn't think that's what it meant when they wrote it. You can't claim that the constitution is simple black/white and not open to interpretation. There are plenty out there who will emphasize the first part of the 2nd (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...) vs the second part (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed), and thereby say that only those in a state militia have a right to keep/bear arms. Again, I wouldn't agree with that, but it's an argument that has been made.

If you go back in time, and see the way laws were written in the 18th Century and before, you will see why this argument doesn't hold water. Laws were written with a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The 2 were understood to be distinctly separate.

The prefatory clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." states a reason for the operative clause. In this case, a militia, being made up of the people who brought their own arms when needed. The militia would NOT refer to a standing army, since the founders were not in favor of a standing army.

The operative clause is the part of the law that matters. You need to read it separately. For all intents and purposes, please pretend the prefatory clause does not even exist. It goes something like this: "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Please read the Majority decisions in either Heller or McDonald. They may help you put this in perspective, as they are rife with historical references.

The People does NOT refer to a standing army or State militia. The People refers to the people. Plain and simple. Why would "the people" in the 2A be the military, and "the people" in all of the other amendments refer to the citizens? It doesn't make sense.

The militia refers to the people, who were required to bring their own arms when called upon.

Commerce clause is horrible. As it pertains to Obamacare, it is not even applicable. Govt can regulate commerce, Obama wants to force people to engage in commerce that prior to the bill did not exist JUST FOR THE SAKE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

 

[Inigoes]

Lost because of a judicial interpretation of the 2A. But, as we've seen with the commerce clause in the ACA debate, interpretations can change.

You're worried over nothing, 4 judges so far have found that the 2A extends "individual" right to bear arms outside the home.

 

[CPT Ethanolic]

That may be your point or your opinion, but open carry certainly serves other purposes.

Yup. And going back to (I think) my original point, I was stating why I CHOOSE not to open carry in public places when given the opportunity. Nowhere in this thread have I argued that people don't/shouldn't have the right to do so.