Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > Concealed Carry & Self Defense
o

Notices

Concealed Carry & Self Defense All aspects of Concealed and Open Carry, Home and Self Defense.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-14-2011, 12:21 PM
Ickmay Ickmay is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default opinions

Hi, how is everbody doing? I just want to ask a question I've asked on other forums...if there are former and current LEOs here what are your feelings on civilians carrying concealed or open, legally? I just want to stay abreast of police current attitudes 'cause things always change.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-14-2011, 03:22 PM
The Big D The Big D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 3,462
Likes: 2,406
Liked 3,377 Times in 1,102 Posts
Default

Not in favor of open carry.

I am retired after 30.5 years of service as a LEO. During my career, whilst on duty and in mufti, we were required to keep our sidearm CONCEALED. The same applied, of course, off-duty; and I was required to carry whilst off-duty.

With so many options for CCW that enable folks to effectively CCW, I see no reason whatsoever to openly carry a sidearm.

Moreover, while I AM absolutely in favor of CCW, I am also absolutely in favor of standards and training as a precursor to CCW by an individual.

Be safe.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-14-2011, 03:30 PM
Pioneer461's Avatar
Pioneer461 Pioneer461 is offline
US Veteran
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Liked 24 Times in 7 Posts
Default

As a retired officer with 30 years on the job, with many years as a major crime detective, I most definitely have an opinion on these matters. Because of what I've experienced, I am very much an advocate of law abiding citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. I know for a fact that the police are not able to protect anybody. Beyond that, the police have no legal duty to protect anyone.
( http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#T5 )

Sure, we come when called, sometimes risking our personal safety to get there and help. We will do our best to identify perpetrators, find and arrest them. The vast majority of criminal law enforcement is reactive. A crime occurs, the police are called and we react, very often well after the bad guy has fled the scene.

Those law abiding citizens who are intelligent enough to realize their personal protection is up to themselves and makes the effort to do so, should be supported by all of law enforcement. Sadly however, some officers just don't get it. Some officers and many administrators see lawfully armed citizens as a threat. They believe that only the police are properly trained and equipped to deal with violent criminals. What too many do not realize is, for each and every violent crime, there is at least one injured victim already on the scene. Emergency responders like to call themself "First Responders," when actually they are the second or third responders. The citizen on the scene is there first.

If the police are the best equipped and trained to deal with violence, ask how many violent crimes were in their jurisdiction. Then ask why the police were not able to protect the number cited. They will no doubt reply, "We can't be everywhere at once." Then thank them for making your point. "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

Concealed carry? I'm all for it. I like the Arizona, Alaska and Vermont "Constitutional Carry" laws. No permit required as long as you can legally possess firearms.

Open carry? Well, that depends. In some places it may be very appropriate. In others, not-so-much. For instance, open carrying in a crowded urban environment will invite 9-1-1 calls to the police, resulting in a potential armed confrontation. When an officer gets a "man with a gun" call, he or she has no idea who is a good guy, or who is a bad guy. Many, myself included, respond in an appropriate manner to make sure we go home at the end of the shift. Remember the movie Jurassic Park? One of the characters said, in regards to cloning dinosaurs; "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." Carrying a firearm should be about self defense, not to make a political statement. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.


Self defense video, dealing with police. http://www.outdoorchannel.com/Shows/BestDefense.aspx?tpid=1743820325&pid=ekwR5liTWw59Y99VMqHHIX0qU_hSkHVv
__________________
Retired Police, Life NRA

Last edited by Pioneer461; 06-14-2011 at 03:59 PM. Reason: added information
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-14-2011, 08:23 PM
WC145's Avatar
WC145 WC145 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,289
Likes: 3,076
Liked 3,828 Times in 851 Posts
Default

I was working on a comment but then I read Pioneer's post and realized I have nothing to add. Great post.
__________________
Don't kiss smiling dogs!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-14-2011, 09:28 PM
sheriffoconee's Avatar
sheriffoconee sheriffoconee is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Watkinsville, GA
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Liked 180 Times in 73 Posts
Default

34 years on the job, and I don't care how you carry your gun....and I don't want you telling me how to carry mine....
Open or concealed...your choice (by law here in GA anyway, but I support it)
If folks panic at the sight of a firearm, I regret that for them. A holstered firearm is less dangerous than walking across most city streets...
Our policy on MWAG calls you ask??? Meet with the caller. If there is reasonable suspicion to believe a crime is afoot, or may be afoot, then talk to the guy or girl with the gun and check it out...absent RAS, go 10-8...
Same common sense Detective McFadden taught us back in the 60's...and if you don't know who McFadden is, there is an historical marker in his honor in the city in which he worked.....I wish I had known him...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-14-2011, 09:47 PM
Cdnbacon Cdnbacon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Agree with everything above, but lean towards Pioneer's thoughts about concealed carry. If there are folks around, such as in town, I would carry concealed. If out in the woods walking the dog, open carry isn't such a big deal. It is legal either way here in Vermont, unfortunately there are plenty of city raised folks who over react at the sight of a gun on someone's hip. My vote goes for concealed carry to maintain a lower profile. Although open carry may serve as a deterrent to those who would prey on the weak, it may give someone an advantage if they want to disarm you, to know where, what and how you carry. It is your choice, and I do hope if someone calls out the boys in blue if they see your gun, the responding officer will be someone with some common sense and would react appropriately. In fact, just about everyone I work with would want to know what you are packing so we could make you an offer if it is something neat.

Last edited by Cdnbacon; 06-14-2011 at 09:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-15-2011, 01:26 AM
Ickmay Ickmay is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Thank you for your honest,truthful and insightful answer Pioneer 461, only if all LEOs were like you...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-15-2011, 01:36 AM
Ickmay Ickmay is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Thank you all for your great, honest and intelligent answers...you LEOs are pretty decent guys and you do a great job...trying to protect us even tho your life is on the line, thanks!! I hope more of you comment.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-15-2011, 05:57 PM
deralte deralte is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Goldsboro, NC
Posts: 10,049
Likes: 4
Liked 251 Times in 188 Posts
Default

I can well understand carrying openly if you are hunting or hiking in a remote area and may need the firepower, but when you are carrying in inhabited areas you are giving away the fact that you have a weapon. Concealed may just give you the upper hand.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-17-2011, 12:13 AM
old bear's Avatar
old bear old bear is offline
US Veteran
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: R.T. P, area NC
Posts: 9,701
Likes: 29,455
Liked 22,969 Times in 5,777 Posts
Default

Pioneer461

Summed it up much better than I could have +1.
__________________
Always Stay Strong!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-17-2011, 06:04 AM
AZretired's Avatar
AZretired AZretired is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Mexico & Arizona
Posts: 1,630
Likes: 735
Liked 1,460 Times in 644 Posts
Default

Retired with 30 years and couldn't have said it better than Pioneer 461. All I can add is why open carry if you can carry concealed. I prefer people not know I'm armed.

Sent from my Ally
__________________
Support your Police, & NRA
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-18-2011, 09:39 AM
David Sinko David Sinko is offline
Member
opinions opinions  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Liked 376 Times in 217 Posts
Default

If you're gonna push "standards" and "qualifications" for the citizen, that's fine, but let's not pretend that all officers are held to some high standard. Our qualifications are already unrealistic with far too generous par time scoring and very loose accuracy requirements, and we still have officers who can't pass on the first try. If the goal is to weed out the "unqualified" citizenry, I'm afraid more than a few officers will fail to meet those same standards.

Dave Sinko
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-18-2011, 10:34 AM
27145 27145 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times in 13 Posts
Default

I retired after 20 years in NYC. I think that every law abiding citizen should have a firearm if they so choose. I believe in conceal carry and open carry in rural areas (woods, farm etc).

There should be firearm qualification and training standards, then you get a State conceal carry permit with a photo on it. That State conceal carry permit should be valid in all 50 States, just like a drivers license.

Open carry to me is dangerous to the person carrying. If a supermarket is getting robbed by gunpoint, you are oblivious and walking through a food aisle, the perp spots you and shoots you before you knowwhat is going on. 911 calls of a man with a gun, causes a conceal carry holder unnecessary contact with the Police.

I also feel all ccp holders should inform the Police upon contact they they have a ccp. As a retired Cop, seeing a license and a ccp would tell me "Great I have a law abiding citizen who has had a background check" and now I can relax. It would be like stopping an off duty Cop and having them show me a shield. It would avoid a confrontation if the ccp holder does not inform the Cop, then the Cop spots the weapon and draws on the good citizen.

I believe in standards and training for one reason, at least it is something. Sure some people, including Cops fall through the cracks, but at least people can be given safety lessons. If the purveyor of the handgun classes are like people on this forum, a person could gain valuable info. Just like a person takes an entry exam to become a Cop, you need to demonstrate that you aren't totally brain dead (I fooled them in 1981). Just because you pass a Police test, doesn'tmean youwill bea good Cop. You need driver training to get a license, it doesnt mean everyone is good at driving.

Good post pioneer461
__________________
Fidelis Ad Mortem
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-18-2011, 11:52 AM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,557
Liked 52,820 Times in 16,468 Posts
Default

Great post pioneer. And thanks to all the leo's for their service, the vast majority of which goes unnoticed and unappreciated.
__________________
Sure you did
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-18-2011, 12:18 PM
nawilson nawilson is offline
US Veteran
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: God's country, GA
Posts: 1,605
Likes: 427
Liked 990 Times in 445 Posts
Default

Great post, Pioneer. "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" is solid advice. I supect that the LEO opinions will vary regionally and even department to department. In Georgia, we all operate under the same laws, but I would expect different reactions to the "man with a gun" (who is sitting in a restaurant, say, not doing anything) from the city of Atlanta versus a metro PD versus a rural sheriffs office.

I think this may be a biased forum, too, because it is populated by gun people. My 1 cent, carry concealed unless you are in the woods. You will save yourself a lot of hassle.
__________________
Proud anachronism
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-18-2011, 01:02 PM
kraigwy kraigwy is offline
US Veteran
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Newcastle WY
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 245
Liked 1,057 Times in 319 Posts
Default

I'm retired, but when I was an FTO I pushed the ideal to my recruits that "assume everyone is carrying". Its the bandits that will get you, not the average citizen regardless if they are carrying or not, regardless of what CC laws you have.

And I believe everyone should. I haven't thought much about open carry. Here in Wyoming its no big deal. I could see where it might be a problem in the cities back east.

As for training, sure everyone should seek training and practice, but I'm against mandantory training.

I was a Firearms instructor for most of my 20 years, in fact my certification is still valid. I learned that mandantory training means nothing. Cops are given training, and are required to qualify every now and then, but even then MOST cops can't shoot for poop. (Same with Soldiers).

If one cares then they will get training and practice whether its mandentory or not. If one doesn't care, all the training in the world wont help.

We certainly don't need the government making it mandentory. Then you have some idiot politician who probably never fired a gun in his life coming up with training standards for CC.

There is plenty of free or low cost training out there, putting the safe carrying of firearms within reach of everyone, regardless of income. You get mandentory training then you get people starting all kinds of shooting schools charging an arm and leg.

Poor or Low Income people normally live where they are most likely in need of protection, mandantory training would price them out of the game.

If mandantory training and licensing worked, we wouldnt have any auto accidents
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-18-2011, 01:23 PM
blujax01's Avatar
blujax01 blujax01 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: C-Bus
Posts: 6,335
Likes: 4,311
Liked 4,916 Times in 2,086 Posts
Default

Ohio does require mandatory training, 12 hours worth. At less than $100, it's cheaper than the cheapest gun. I don't see that being any more of a deterrent to low income families than auto insurance. Heck, license plates are approaching $75 per year.

I'd rather see the mandatory training stay put. If for no other reason than that the novice will at least get an idea of which end goes BANG!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-18-2011, 02:29 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big D View Post
Not in favor of open carry.

I am retired after 30.5 years of service as a LEO. During my career, whilst on duty and in mufti, we were required to keep our sidearm CONCEALED. The same applied, of course, off-duty; and I was required to carry whilst off-duty.

With so many options for CCW that enable folks to effectively CCW, I see no reason whatsoever to openly carry a sidearm.

Moreover, while I AM absolutely in favor of CCW, I am also absolutely in favor of standards and training as a precursor to CCW by an individual.

Be safe.
How do you feel about shall issue CCW, which is currently NOT the law in MD as I understand it?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-18-2011, 02:35 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 27145 View Post
Open carry to me is dangerous to the person carrying. If a supermarket is getting robbed by gunpoint, you are oblivious and walking through a food aisle, the perp spots you and shoots you before you knowwhat is going on.
Do you know of an instance where that happened?

Such claims seem to be of a kind with the claims by FOP here first that if people were allowed to carry that every minor traffic accident would end up reinacting the finale of "The Wild Bunch", and now that if I'm allowed to carry into Applebee's, I'm going to get liquored up and shoot a dozen innocent diners.

I see a lot of such claims, but VERY little proof.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-18-2011, 04:28 PM
sheriffoconee's Avatar
sheriffoconee sheriffoconee is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Watkinsville, GA
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Liked 180 Times in 73 Posts
Default

I agree with the above, lots of talk about it, but it is so rare as to be a statistical non event....
I also think training is a act by the government to restrict a right guaranteed by the Constitution. You don't need training to exercise any other right, including freedom of speech....
Here in GA a 53 year old schoolteacher was attached in her shower by a bandit...she fought him tooth and nail, including using the shower rod to beat him with....she fought back to her bedroom, where she recovered a .22 caliber self loading pistol and scored 9 out of 9 hits, killing the bandit...
She, and other law abiding citizens, should be able to be armed....period...
With that said, I WISH people would get training and learn to shoot, BUT I also wish people wouldn't drive 45 in the left lane, and stop at yield signs when nothing is coming....but I digress....
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-18-2011, 05:00 PM
OKFC05 OKFC05 is online now
Member
opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 8,158
Likes: 3,605
Liked 5,199 Times in 2,172 Posts
Default

Quote:
As for training, sure everyone should seek training and practice, but I'm against mandantory training.

I was a Firearms instructor for most of my 20 years, in fact my certification is still valid. I learned that mandantory training means nothing. Cops are given training, and are required to qualify every now and then, but even then MOST cops can't shoot for poop. (Same with Soldiers).

If one cares then they will get training and practice whether its mandentory or not. If one doesn't care, all the training in the world wont help.


I agree 100%.
I advocate training, and teach the NRA pistol and defense classes. I advocate shooting IDPA for some gun handling practice and simulated stress.
I have taught the UT CHL class and still do the OK CHL classes, as mandated by the state with lesson plans by the CLEET law enforcement trainers.
Aside from the mandatory sitting and listening to safety and law briefing, most of the class is worthless as "training" a person to shoot, and is 20 years out of date besides. The greatest problem is the people who sit and obsess about the "shooting test" and don't hear a word about the laws, which is what they really need to remember.
A one-day CHL class is not "training in defense shooting" and gives people the wrong impression that they are "trained."

I'd rather just teach the seminar part of the class without the shooting, as Utah does it, and give them a paper that says "You now know the laws about carry and can apply for your license. You have NOT been trained in defense shooting by this class and need to obtain training from qualified shooting instructors, to the proficiency you want to achieve."
Hitting a government mandated target to a government mandated score is irrelevant to the judgement needed to have a gun.
__________________
Science plus Art
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-18-2011, 05:27 PM
Big Cholla Big Cholla is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 3,428
Likes: 5,932
Liked 5,259 Times in 1,732 Posts
Default

Pioneer461 speaks for me. I'm a retired LEO. ............ Big Cholla
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-18-2011, 05:35 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheriffoconee View Post
I also think training is a act by the government to restrict a right guaranteed by the Constitution. You don't need training to exercise any other right, including freedom of speech....
I don't know about anyplace else, but here in Ohio, I would remove the requirement for firearms training, and shift it over to be STRICTLY training regarding firearms, CCW and use of deadly force law and NOTHING else.

I can't think of a SINGLE person here with a CHL who's gotten in trouble because they didn't know their firearm. It's an unusual week when some story doesn't turn up on the Ohioans for Concealed Carry web site about a citizen or a cop who got into trouble from not knowing the LAW. CCW and firearms law here is often so counterintuitive that no normal person would ever even consider some of it a possibility. Until the Governor signs the new reform bill, it is 100% legal to walk anywhere that's not prohibited by statute or posting with a firearm in your pocket. Sit in an automobile and you're automatically a criminal. Take the firearm out of your pocket before getting in, put it in a pocket holster, then put both back in your pocket and you're magically not a criminal.

Anecdotal evidence here suggests that the citizen had BETTER know the law regarding CCW, because the odds are even or better than any LEO you encounter for whatever reason, WON'T. And that includes a broad array of misconceptions, including that open carry is unlawful and that you MUST inform an LEO that you have a CHL when stopped for a law enforcement purpose when you AREN'T armed.

Last edited by cmort666; 06-18-2011 at 05:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-18-2011, 05:41 PM
oldman45 oldman45 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 95
Liked 336 Times in 138 Posts
Default

I live in a State that has had Open Carry about as long as it has been a state. I have carried openly and would rather do it that way. My love of handguns and collecting began with the fathers of two friends of mine taking me to the range with their sons about age 12. These me wore their guns openly and when we arrived at the range, all the men were wearing openly.

I have concealed permits from three Parishes and the State. I carry concealed on occasion, especially when in areas where open carry is forbidden. It is not a problem at all but it is more difficult and time consuming to get a gun drawn for action. Also, if the need came for a gun, reaching for it would attract more attention by those you need to restrain.

As a person involved in varying levels of law enforcement over the years, I enjoy seeing people carry openly. Police officers carry openly. Plain clothes officers carry openly. Last Wednesday I had lunch with a Shift Commander and a Captain over IAD as well as a Traffic Patrol officer. Counting myself, there were four of us at the table. Only one was in uniform. Two had neckties on. One was wearing western clothing (yours truly). Not a coat in the group. Not a concealed weapon in the bunch. There were four sidearms readily available and visible.

Now should there have been anyone considering robbing the restaurant or it's patrons, do you think that person would continue after seeing four armed people inside? He may have if those weapons were not visible. The idea of open carry serves many functions. It allows those not familar with firearms to see that people owning them are not all bad and not out to injure or kill. It allows those considering criminal intent to reconsider. It gives people that may be on the fence about firearms a chance to discuss the subject with those that have firearms.

Why do some businesses offer discounts to police officers? It is not the sight of a badge. If it were, I would just wear a badge in to eat. It is the determent of seeing someone wearing a gun that will keep the bad guys from their course of action. If it were the uniform, then the business would not benefit from the presence of plain clothes officers. It is the sight of a gun.

I also know that many are against Open Carry. Those that are will generally be from and in states that do not allow open carry. They are not accustomed to seeing people with guns. As said earlier, this state has open carry. There are likely 2,400 sworn POST LEO in this area. A poll among them would be so one sided in favor of open carry that it would not even make a good pie chart.

Now you have my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-18-2011, 06:56 PM
27145 27145 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmort666 View Post
Do you know of an instance where that happened?

Such claims seem to be of a kind with the claims by FOP here first that if people were allowed to carry that every minor traffic accident would end up reinacting the finale of "The Wild Bunch", and now that if I'm allowed to carry into Applebee's, I'm going to get liquored up and shoot a dozen innocent diners.

I see a lot of such claims, but VERY little proof.
To tell you the truth, I think you are so gung ho pro open carry rhat you would never be satisfied with any answer I give. It is just my opinion, why flaunt it if you can keep a tactical secret?
__________________
Fidelis Ad Mortem
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-18-2011, 09:44 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 27145 View Post
To tell you the truth, I think you are so gung ho pro open carry rhat you would never be satisfied with any answer I give. It is just my opinion, why flaunt it if you can keep a tactical secret?
I'll take that as a "no" in answer to my question.

And I don't open carry.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-18-2011, 10:10 PM
27145 27145 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times in 13 Posts
Default

I'll take that as a "no" in answer to my question.


The answer is actually yes. But I won't bother.
__________________
Fidelis Ad Mortem
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-18-2011, 10:13 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 27145 View Post
I'll take that as a "no" in answer to my question.


The answer is actually yes. But I won't bother.
That seems odd, along with your assumption that I'm "gung ho open carry".

Nobody else can seem to come up with a verifiable example. Wouldn't you like to be the first?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-18-2011, 10:59 PM
27145 27145 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times in 13 Posts
Default

No thanks, I thought I provided a couple of good realistic scenarios. I don't know everything. I guess open carry is the way to go? I can open and conceal here in Va. If you have any good tips on open carry, I will probably start open carrying and strutting like a proud rooster down the block.
__________________
Fidelis Ad Mortem
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-19-2011, 12:10 AM
photoman's Avatar
photoman photoman is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 522
Liked 1,907 Times in 787 Posts
Default

With the way these open carry discussions go, you would think the Brady group was behind it. Sheesh!

Carry open if you want. Carry concealed if you want. Last time I checked, the Second Amendment didn't say ANYTHING about how to carry or how much training or anything like that.

I think we ought to do as the Constitution says...
__________________
Centennial Every Day
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-19-2011, 12:12 AM
cshoff's Avatar
cshoff cshoff is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central Missouri
Posts: 871
Likes: 54
Liked 95 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZretired View Post
Retired with 30 years and couldn't have said it better than Pioneer 461. All I can add is why open carry if you can carry concealed. I prefer people not know I'm armed.

Sent from my Ally
So do you prefer to know whether or not the "man on the street" that you make contact with is armed?

Frankly, I'm not sure why ANY LEO would prefer concealed carry over open carry. At least when people openly carry, you have no doubt as to whether or not they are armed.

Law abiding adults should have the choice to carry in whatever manner they feel works best for them and their lifestyle. All hoplophobic fears aside, it's really nobody's business why a person chooses to lawfully exercise their rights in one way over another.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-19-2011, 06:21 AM
oldman45 oldman45 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 95
Liked 336 Times in 138 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
So do you prefer to know whether or not the "man on the street" that you make contact with is armed?

Frankly, I'm not sure why ANY LEO would prefer concealed carry over open carry. At least when people openly carry, you have no doubt as to whether or not they are armed.
In the event of needing help, it is nice to have some idea as to who may be armed that can aid a LEO. Many of the LEO across the US have been aided by armed citizens.

If I need a backup gun, the best one I could hope for would be for a person of character to be armed and next to me.

I must ask, how often does one see a gangbanger, an armed robber or a serial killer openly carrying? A person carrying openly has nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-19-2011, 10:23 AM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 27145 View Post
No thanks, I thought I provided a couple of good realistic scenarios. I don't know everything. I guess open carry is the way to go? I can open and conceal here in Va. If you have any good tips on open carry, I will probably start open carrying and strutting like a proud rooster down the block.
Opponents of concealed carry in Ohio came up with all kinds of "good realistic scenarios" of how if concealed carry were made legal, there'd be gunfights over traffic accidents, shopping, and a whole host of other trivial matters, leaving the streets awash in gore. When asked to provide actual examples from other states with shall issue CCW, NONE of them could do so.

Now having told us that if I eat lunch at Chipotle while carrying, I'll get drunk and massacre all of the other customers, they similarly cannot provide any verifiable examples.

Anti-gunners are just full of "scenarios". Verifiable examples? Not so much.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-19-2011, 11:18 AM
CelticSire's Avatar
CelticSire CelticSire is offline
US Veteran
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 1,816
Liked 1,167 Times in 309 Posts
Default

Perhaps someone can explain the dichotomy in reasoning proposed by opponents of open carry. The argument is always that open carry causes the individual carrying to be in greater danger than carrying concealed due to the fact the an armed criminal will shoot him or her first. Are you telling me that a criminal will NOT commit a crime because he thinks that there MAY be an armed citizen present, but that he WILL commit a crime when he KNOWS that there is an armed citizen present? Really? Never dealt much with criminals, have you? They are all about minimizing risks. What about the argument that ready access to firearms by citizens produces lower crime rates? Are you trying to tell me that it is only concealed firearms that produces the reduction? Oh, and the comment about carrying openly and being clueless in the middle of an armed robbery. If you're that clueless, you probably don't need to be carrying a gun PERIOD, regardless of whether it's open or concealed.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-19-2011, 11:33 AM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticSire View Post
Perhaps someone can explain the dichotomy in reasoning proposed by opponents of open carry. The argument is always that open carry causes the individual carrying to be in greater danger than carrying concealed due to the fact the an armed criminal will shoot him or her first. Are you telling me that a criminal will NOT commit a crime because he thinks that there MAY be an armed citizen present, but that he WILL commit a crime when he KNOWS that there is an armed citizen present? Really? Never dealt much with criminals, have you? They are all about minimizing risks. What about the argument that ready access to firearms by citizens produces lower crime rates? Are you trying to tell me that it is only concealed firearms that produces the reduction? Oh, and the comment about carrying openly and being clueless in the middle of an armed robbery. If you're that clueless, you probably don't need to be carrying a gun PERIOD, regardless of whether it's open or concealed.
The "they'll shoot you first!" red herring of course raises two issues:
  1. Robbers who do a lot of shooting tend not to last too long in the business. They attract a lot of attention, and it's not a business where you want to attract attention, especially from people eager to deprive you of your liberty or shoot you. If you shoot the open carrier and somebody carrying concealed shoots you in the back of the head, what have you gained by shooting the open carrier?
  2. If you shoot somebody BEFORE you rob them, you then end up trying to rifle through the pockets of a limp corpse, covering yourself in forensic evidence, and often of the most highly visible sort. At the same time, you're occupied, with your back turned after having alerted everyone in earshot that a crime is in progress.
I can see people CHOOSING FOR THEMSELVES not to carry openly. That's the choice I've made. On the other hand, the hysterical condemnations of open carry are usually indistinguishable from the hysterical condemnations of CARRY, and frequently use EXACTLY the same arguments. And when you ask for verifiable examples, the opponents of BOTH concealed AND open carry lapse into an identical mute state.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-19-2011, 11:44 AM
27145 27145 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticSire View Post
Perhaps someone can explain the dichotomy in reasoning proposed by opponents of open carry. The argument is always that open carry causes the individual carrying to be in greater danger than carrying concealed due to the fact the an armed criminal will shoot him or her first. Are you telling me that a criminal will NOT commit a crime because he thinks that there MAY be an armed citizen present, but that he WILL commit a crime when he KNOWS that there is an armed citizen present? Really? Never dealt much with criminals, have you? They are all about minimizing risks. What about the argument that ready access to firearms by citizens produces lower crime rates? Are you trying to tell me that it is only concealed firearms that produces the reduction? Oh, and the comment about carrying openly and being clueless in the middle of an armed robbery. If you're that clueless, you probably don't need to be carrying a gun PERIOD, regardless of whether it's open or concealed.
Celtic apparently your comments are directed towards me.I am extolling the benefits of concealed carry over open carry. I never once said that open carry should be ended.

On the other hand, for me, I like to keep things to myself. I guess I equate open carry to wearing a cowboy hat and chaps. On the farm or the range it is very appropiate. In that attire in NYC you may be the recipient of unwanted sexual advances by members of the same sex.

"Really? Never dealt much with criminals, have you? They are all about minimizing risks."

I was an NYPD Cop from 83-03. I always found criminals to be impulsive, opportunistic and rash. You really do not know me, nor I you, but I will venture to say that it probably would take you 200 years to ever attain what I have experienced in 20.
__________________
Fidelis Ad Mortem

Last edited by 27145; 06-19-2011 at 11:47 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-19-2011, 11:57 AM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 27145 View Post
You really do not know me, nor I you, but I will venture to say that it probably would take you 200 years to ever attain what I have experienced in 20.
Apparently you felt you knew me well enough (without our ever having met) to say the following:

Quote:
If you have any good tips on open carry, I will probably start open carrying and strutting like a proud rooster down the block.
I've often seen the same attitude from anti-gunners toward people who lawfully carried concealed. I've particularly seen it from LEOs and former LEOs from places where carry is limited to the wealthy and politically connected. Concealed and open carriers from neighboring states have noted it frequently, especially in encounters where the visitor or "transplant" tries to impose out of state laws and values. The attitude toward the "unwashed" who wish to be able to effectively defend themselves and their families is one of contempt. I guess NYC would fall into that category...

Last edited by cmort666; 06-19-2011 at 12:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-19-2011, 04:51 PM
mike from st pete's Avatar
mike from st pete mike from st pete is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: st pete fla
Posts: 2,871
Likes: 5,648
Liked 2,763 Times in 1,213 Posts
Default Open Carry

Quote:
Originally Posted by CelticSire View Post
Perhaps someone can explain the dichotomy in reasoning proposed by opponents of open carry. The argument is always that open carry causes the individual carrying to be in greater danger than carrying concealed due to the fact the an armed criminal will shoot him or her first. Are you telling me that a criminal will NOT commit a crime because he thinks that there MAY be an armed citizen present, but that he WILL commit a crime when he KNOWS that there is an armed citizen present? Really? Never dealt much with criminals, have you? They are all about minimizing risks. What about the argument that ready access to firearms by citizens produces lower crime rates? Are you trying to tell me that it is only concealed firearms that produces the reduction? Oh, and the comment about carrying openly and being clueless in the middle of an armed robbery. If you're that clueless, you probably don't need to be carrying a gun PERIOD, regardless of whether it's open or concealed.
Where is the logic in you cannot open carry because you will be the first one shot? When I carry in a fanny pack I'm told that thing is a shoot me first pack. When I wear a photographer's vest I get told I'll be the first targeted too? But all the other deep concealment options are the way to go, if you can dig your mouse gun out in time.
We in the GunShine State now have a kind of sort of you won't get arrested if your gun shows for a little bit? Who is timing the "briefly" and is there a time limit for me to pull my shirt back down? The reason it cannot show full time is I'll scare the tourists and snowbirds. Then they will all vacation in AZ?
The ranting and raving against open carry at the St Petersburg Police Pistol Club was an eye opener for me. Most of those against were/are in law enforcement or security. And you should have seen the Sherif at the hearing for the open carry law. If I can find the youtube link I'll be back. Coats was going to order all the deputies to draw on everyone they saw openly carrying! Too much!

Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqrLRePn8Js

Since when are rights granted to us by the authorities?

Last edited by s&wchad; 06-19-2011 at 08:32 PM. Reason: pol
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-19-2011, 05:51 PM
oldman45 oldman45 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 95
Liked 336 Times in 138 Posts
Default

Open or concealed carry is only a matter of choice. Some for and some against. The arguments against open carry are weak and the open carry laws in several states bear this out. People carry openly and nobody pays it any attention. There have been no shootings of those carrying openly that I know of. By the same token, I cannot prove that any robberies were prevented by open carry.

What I can prove is that many people either prevented or interrupted crimes becaused they carried in some form.

I will say that as a LEO, I would pay more attention to some one that is printing than I would someone carrying openly.

Now for a question posed to me by a 28 yr city cop. If you are confronted by an armed robber in a restaurant, would you rather be helped by one carrying openly or shot by an accomplice carrying concealed? Robbers seldom work alone when robbing populated places.

Last edited by oldman45; 06-19-2011 at 08:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-19-2011, 07:10 PM
photoman's Avatar
photoman photoman is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 522
Liked 1,907 Times in 787 Posts
Default

I'm not a cop but I can tell you guys this, if I were a cop, I would assume that ever single person I had any interaction with WAS armed.

Regarding open or concealed carry, it's one of those subjects that we all have to agree to disagree and move on. Personal attacks do nothing to promote the legal ownership and carrying of firearms and only encourage those who desire to take away our ability to own and carry firearms.
__________________
Centennial Every Day
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-19-2011, 07:13 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photoman44 View Post
I'm not a cop but I can tell you guys this, if I were a cop, I would assume that ever single person I had any interaction with WAS armed.

Regarding open or concealed carry, it's one of those subjects that we all have to agree to disagree and move on. Personal attacks do nothing to promote the legal ownership and carrying of firearms and only encourage those who desire to take away our ability to own and carry firearms.
I'm always fascinated by the vehemence of the attacks on open carry and open carriers. It often verges on religious fanaticism.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-19-2011, 07:16 PM
photoman's Avatar
photoman photoman is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 522
Liked 1,907 Times in 787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmort666 View Post
I'm always fascinated by the vehemence of the attacks on open carry and open carriers. It often verges on religious fanaticism.
Yes, I agree and that's why I don't understand why the "open carry" crowd is so militant about discussing the topic.
__________________
Centennial Every Day
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-19-2011, 07:19 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photoman44 View Post
Yes, I agree and that's why I don't understand why the "open carry" crowd is so militant about discussing the topic.
If one were to take that position in general, you could never defend firearms ownership or carry of ANY kind, EVER.

I'm not one to be silenced by the mere vehemence with which a nonsensical position is asserted.

Last edited by cmort666; 06-20-2011 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-19-2011, 07:21 PM
photoman's Avatar
photoman photoman is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 522
Liked 1,907 Times in 787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmort666 View Post
If one were to take that position in general, you could never defend firearms ownership or carry of ANY kind, EVER.

I'm not one to be silenced by the mere vehemence with which a nonsensical position asserted.
The discussion about open carry ALWAYS degrades into personal attacks. This one is getting there. I've said my opinion and will move along...
__________________
Centennial Every Day
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-19-2011, 07:22 PM
cshoff's Avatar
cshoff cshoff is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central Missouri
Posts: 871
Likes: 54
Liked 95 Times in 54 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photoman44 View Post
Yes, I agree and that's why I don't understand why the "open carry" crowd is so militant about discussing the topic.
So the folks who are lawfully exercising their rights, and being belittled and ridiculed by hoplophobic law enforcement officers and citizens, are the ones being "militant" about the topic? Exactly how does that work?

Wouldn't you get defensive if someone were to question the way you lawfully exercised your rights?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-19-2011, 07:29 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
So the folks who are lawfully exercising their rights, and being belittled and ridiculed by hoplophobic law enforcement officers and citizens, are the ones being "militant" about the topic? Exactly how does that work?

Wouldn't you get defensive if someone were to question the way you lawfully exercised your rights?
Pretty much EVERY online discussion I have with anti-gunners goes the same way. I don't see that as a reason to allow myself to be shouted down or intimidated into not defending firearms OWNERSHIP, never mind any particular means of LAWFUL carry. The same applies to open carry.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-19-2011, 07:39 PM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,557
Liked 52,820 Times in 16,468 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ickmay View Post
...you LEOs are pretty decent guys and you do a great job...trying to protect us even tho your life is on the line, thanks!!
Yes they are , they do, and GOD bless them all.
__________________
Sure you did
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-19-2011, 07:42 PM
photoman's Avatar
photoman photoman is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 522
Liked 1,907 Times in 787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmort666 View Post
Pretty much EVERY online discussion I have with anti-gunners goes the same way.
My point exactly. You are not going to change their mind. If they don't agree with open carry, anything you say is not going to change their mind. It always deteriorates into personal attacks so why keep droning on and on about it.

If your state does not permit open carry, get politically involved and change it! Arguing with a bunch of gun owners that don't agree with you will not change a thing.
__________________
Centennial Every Day
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-19-2011, 08:40 PM
CelticSire's Avatar
CelticSire CelticSire is offline
US Veteran
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 1,816
Liked 1,167 Times in 309 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 27145 View Post
Celtic apparently your comments are directed towards me.
No, they weren't. They were directed to anyone that can explain the argument that open carry immediately makes you an instant target while carrying concealed offers some mythical protection apparently equivalent to Gawaine's shield. If the argument is that concealed carry prevents crime because criminals won't act if there is a possibility that someone is armed, then the logical extension is that open carry will prevent even more crime because the criminals will know for sure that someone is armed. However, open carry opponents always argue the reverse, that carrying openly will cause more crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 27145 View Post
On the other hand, for me, I like to keep things to myself. I guess I equate open carry to wearing a cowboy hat and chaps. On the farm or the range it is very appropiate. In that attire in NYC you may be the recipient of unwanted sexual advances by members of the same sex.
Apples and oranges. It is highly doubtful that you would need to throw a rope around a heifer in preparation for branding on the streets of NYC, so there would be no need to dress like that. However, that has nothing to do with the lawful exercise of one's rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 27145 View Post
I was an NYPD Cop from 83-03. I always found criminals to be impulsive, opportunistic and rash. You really do not know me, nor I you, but I will venture to say that it probably would take you 200 years to ever attain what I have experienced in 20.
And you would be wrong. If you choose to take my use of your example, and agreement with it, as a personal attack, so be it. It wasn't, and I fail to see how you could make it so. However, please spare me the "NYPD" mystique about how much blood and gore you guys walk thru. You're right, high-speed, you don't know me, and you have no idea of my experiences, training, and qualifications, and for you to denigrate it by saying that an NYPD cop is 10 times the law enforcement officer that anyone else is disingenuous at best and insulting at worst.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-19-2011, 08:50 PM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is offline
Member
opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 9,451
Likes: 1,271
Liked 9,184 Times in 3,621 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photoman44 View Post
My point exactly. You are not going to change their mind. If they don't agree with open carry, anything you say is not going to change their mind. It always deteriorates into personal attacks so why keep droning on and on about it.

If your state does not permit open carry, get politically involved and change it! Arguing with a bunch of gun owners that don't agree with you will not change a thing.
I don't argue to change the minds of committed anti-gunners. I argue to change the minds of the observers. And it works. Most normal people don't like being lied to. If you can show that the anti-gunners are liars (and it's TRIVIALLY easy to do so), you change minds. I don't want to convert the anti-gunners. I want them to convert the uninformed and the neutral by being a horrible negative example. And it almost NEVER fails.

As Harry Truman said, I don't give them hell. I just tell them the truth and it SEEMS like hell.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ccw, commander, concealed, detective, idpa, nra, sig arms, sile, smith-wessonforum.com, tactical

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
25-7 Opinions ? PackN S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 25 12-15-2016 03:12 PM
M&P 45c opinions. clcdawg Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 12 03-14-2014 11:32 AM
586-3 opinions Stroupdr S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 9 11-03-2013 06:14 PM
Opinions On A 469, Please Max Owner Smith & Wesson Semi-Auto Pistols 17 02-25-2010 03:34 PM
Opinions on AR 10s (308) TOM BECKWITH The Lounge 6 08-21-2009 12:09 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:39 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)