LDM
Member
You also need to factor in the cost of the HazMat suit you need to protect yourself.
Obnoxious “Kid” Carrying In/At Waldmartan
- Thread starter 4T5GUY
- Start date
- Status
You also need to factor in the cost of the HazMat suit you need to protect yourself.
VaTom
Member
Regarding open carry. It has it's place in the appropriate environment. On the farm, in the woods, back country, etc. It does make some folks uncomfortable. I never open carry. Hold a CCP. I became a LEO back in 1976 (now retired). At that time our policy manual required that plainclothes officers and off duty officers in civilian clothes keep their sidearm concealed so as "to not unduly alarm the public". That still stays with me after all these years. Of course that was in the day when plainclothes officers all wore coat and ties except for specialized units.
Just saying - perspective from an old school
geezer.
Just saying - perspective from an old school
geezer.
Last edited:
fiasconva
US Veteran
We see open carry quite often in this area but the carriers are usually buttoned up and look very professional with quality equipment. I've only seen one Yahoo carrying like the OP mentioned and it was also in a Walmart. He had a nice S&W revolver carried in a sagging belt and holster and it looked like the revolver was going to fall out of the holster any minute.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2005
- Messages
- 472
- Reaction score
- 1,285
Even idiots sometimes choose to exercise constitutional rights. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
I'm sorry, I am not following your logic at all.
I like ARs. I own a lot of them. However, as a business owner I also think it's a major dumb move when someone show up in a business open carrying an AR just to prove a point about their 2A rights.
Sure, they have 2A rights. But the business owner also has a right to make money and should not have to forfeit that right just because some weak individual wants to feel lower by carrying an AR-15 into a Starbucks, Target, Chipotle, etc.
Why does that kind of insensitive 2A demonstration infringe on the business owner's right to run a successful business? Because those folks carrying their AR-15s make the other customers uncomfortable. Often it's not just the AR-15. It's the tactical ninja wanna be clothing and the attitude.
I fully support business owners and franchise owner posting their property "no open carry" and I just thank God and their good sense to recognize it's not the responsible concealed carry people causing the problem, and not positing it as a flat "no firearms".
—-
The rabid pro 2A folks would like me to believe that unless I stand United arm in arm with their "right" to engage in insensitive, counterproductive, and quite frankly stupid, 2A demonstrations somehow I am not really pro 2A or am not really a worthy gun owner. They also see, to think that as we are not standing United as gun owners we are going to lose the 2 A right.
Well…they have it only half right and they have it backwards.
The fact is that every Constitutional right we have is a man made right that is by no means "inalienable" or "God given".
The fact is that gun owners are a minority (40% of households, and 32% of adults).
The fact is that every single right we have, including the right to bear arms comes with a commensurate obligation to wield that right responsibly and with due consideration for the rights of others so that we do not needlessly infringe on the rights and happiness of others.
In light of the facts, and the world being the way it really, is rather than how various folks wish it were, when some moron, no matter how well intended, walks into a business open carrying an AR-15 they are a direct and imminent threat to our retention of our 2 A rights. They represent gun owners as a group very badly. They scare the public, and they create enough discomfort that when 2A issues or candidates show up on the ballot those otherwise don't-care-doesn't-affect-me non gun owners do decide that guns have a negative effect on them and they do not vote in ways that support our rights. And it's their right to vote that way.
If we don't do a better job as a community of respectfully wielding our 2A rights, we will lose them. Period. Full stop.
So..how about supporting the rest of us by parking the entitled "but mah rights…." and or the particularly ignorant "my gun rights were God given!" attitude(s) and help the rest of out by being polite and considerate of all American citizens, not just the ones who like guns.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not parking a thing.
This. We aren't too rule-crazed hereabouts.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 9,199
- Reaction score
- 11,412
You're right; there's nothing wrong with using good judgement. The attitudes and actions of the buffoons and goobers can do much harm, but sadly, many of them are too obstinate and reactionary to see the damage they cause.
Sam D
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2020
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 205
This passed last year in Colorado and a similar bill will be introduced in New Mexico at our legislative session which opens next week. These laws shouldn't be necessary if folks used common sense.
This is copied directly from the Colorado bill - not sure why they use all caps.
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO OPENLY CARRY A FIREARM, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-901 (3)(h), WITHIN ANY POLLING LOCATION, OR WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEET OF A DROP BOX OR ANY BUILDING IN WHICH A POLLING LOCATION IS LOCATED, AS PUBLICLY POSTED BY THE DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL, ON THE DAY OF ANY ELECTION OR DURING THE TIME WHEN VOTING IS PERMITTED FOR ANY ELECTION. THE DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CENTRAL COUNT FACILITY, POLLING LOCATION, OR DROP BOX INVOLVED IN THAT ELECTION CYCLE SHALL VISIBLY PLACE A SIGN NOTIFYING PERSONS OF THE ONE-HUNDRED FOOT NO OPEN CARRY ZONE FOR FIREARMS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO OPENLY CARRY A FIREARM, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-901 (3)(h), WITHIN A CENTRAL COUNT FACILITY, OR WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEET OF ANY BUILDING IN WHICH A CENTRAL COUNT FACILITY IS LOCATED, DURING ANY ONGOING ELECTION ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITY RELATED TO AN ACTIVE ELECTION CONDUCTED BY THE DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL, AS PUBLICLY POSTED BY THE DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL.
ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OR BY BOTH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT; EXCEPT THAT, FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, THE FINE SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS AND THE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS. https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_1086_signed.pdf
This is copied directly from the Colorado bill - not sure why they use all caps.
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO OPENLY CARRY A FIREARM, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-901 (3)(h), WITHIN ANY POLLING LOCATION, OR WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEET OF A DROP BOX OR ANY BUILDING IN WHICH A POLLING LOCATION IS LOCATED, AS PUBLICLY POSTED BY THE DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL, ON THE DAY OF ANY ELECTION OR DURING THE TIME WHEN VOTING IS PERMITTED FOR ANY ELECTION. THE DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CENTRAL COUNT FACILITY, POLLING LOCATION, OR DROP BOX INVOLVED IN THAT ELECTION CYCLE SHALL VISIBLY PLACE A SIGN NOTIFYING PERSONS OF THE ONE-HUNDRED FOOT NO OPEN CARRY ZONE FOR FIREARMS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO OPENLY CARRY A FIREARM, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-901 (3)(h), WITHIN A CENTRAL COUNT FACILITY, OR WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEET OF ANY BUILDING IN WHICH A CENTRAL COUNT FACILITY IS LOCATED, DURING ANY ONGOING ELECTION ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITY RELATED TO AN ACTIVE ELECTION CONDUCTED BY THE DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL, AS PUBLICLY POSTED BY THE DESIGNATED ELECTION OFFICIAL.
ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR DAYS, OR BY BOTH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT; EXCEPT THAT, FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, THE FINE SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS AND THE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS. https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2022a_1086_signed.pdf
Last edited:
OP
For the most part Oregon is NOT a 2A friendly state. (And getting worse.) For instance Portland, Beaverton and Tigard among others, (like Eugene, (?)), strictly prohibits open carry. This isn't a new thing. I got pulled over/stopped by multiples mid span on the Marquam Bridge in Portland back in 1982. I had my under-folder Mini 14 in the gun rack of my truck. Just passing through headed east. Everything eventually ended up just fine.
Open carry is fine, AND a "privilege" where I live but I and most people legally carry concealed.
Jim
not sure if this is pertinent to gun rights and this discussion. Many years ago, back when I was in college, went with some friends to a free college music festival. We met a young man standing silently in an aisle, he covered in white paint, his hair some frizzed up be-dazzled wild hairdo, his clothing all torn and painted. One of my companions asked him why he dressed and made up so. The strange young man replied "...I don't like people looking at me."
I have never really understood that reasoning.
I am a firm, very firm believer in our First Amendment, I think the most important safeguard for our democracy. I read and hear a lot things I personally disagree with and do not believe in, but at the same time, respect their right to speak and say and often do what they want. I believe in non-violent demonstrations, and protestations.
Here in SC, open carry is permitted, but for all the folks I know are gun and shooting enthusiasts I don't know of any who do so.
Perhaps a corollary to pushing to and beyond the limits of our rights is the Jan 6 US Capitol invasion. I think if all those people who attacked our capitol, with several deaths and much destruction had just demonstrated outside on the steps instead of bashing their way into the building, they would have generated sympathy and support for their point of view, but carried to the extreme of their actions, certainly much harm was done to their cause.
Or did the riots and deaths and destruction from the extreme actions of those who "spoke out" against the death of George Floyd, have set back their goals of safer law enforcement?
Might ostentatious open carry have the same result? I think the appropriate term for this is "backlash."
More coffee and a bagel for breakfast. SF VET
I have never really understood that reasoning.
I am a firm, very firm believer in our First Amendment, I think the most important safeguard for our democracy. I read and hear a lot things I personally disagree with and do not believe in, but at the same time, respect their right to speak and say and often do what they want. I believe in non-violent demonstrations, and protestations.
Here in SC, open carry is permitted, but for all the folks I know are gun and shooting enthusiasts I don't know of any who do so.
Perhaps a corollary to pushing to and beyond the limits of our rights is the Jan 6 US Capitol invasion. I think if all those people who attacked our capitol, with several deaths and much destruction had just demonstrated outside on the steps instead of bashing their way into the building, they would have generated sympathy and support for their point of view, but carried to the extreme of their actions, certainly much harm was done to their cause.
Or did the riots and deaths and destruction from the extreme actions of those who "spoke out" against the death of George Floyd, have set back their goals of safer law enforcement?
Might ostentatious open carry have the same result? I think the appropriate term for this is "backlash."
More coffee and a bagel for breakfast. SF VET
If you really want to calm the nerves of the public, support the ban of AR's and semi auto's.
I see more people riled up and demanding something be done about them, than someone exposing a handgun.
I see more people riled up and demanding something be done about them, than someone exposing a handgun.
NC law currently doesn't directly prevent open or concealed carry at a polling place, but many of the locations used as polling places are gun free zones, such as municipal buildings or schools. I'm not a big gun fee zone fan, as gun free zones are intentionally targeted by mass shooters, but to be fair, despite all the press, mass shootings are very, very, rare events in the big picture.
In terms of voting, it is a reasonable 2A friendly approach, but one that depends on gun owners to act responsibly and with consideration for others.
In mid term elections our polling location is in a municipal building that is posted as a gun free zone. Consequently, I leave my concealed carry handgun in my vehicle's console safe.
In presidential elections our polling location is in a church, where both open and concealed carry is technically allowed.
It is however one of those situations where an armed individual is well advised to use common sense. I've voted there in the past while conceal carrying, but take even greater pains than usual to ensure my gun stays concealed. In no way shape or form do my 2A rights take precedence over the rights of other people to feel safe and secure while voting, and to feel free from anything that could be perceived as intimidation.
NC does have laws against voter intimidation as well as "going armed to the terror of the public". It doesn't take much imagination to see how open carrying at a polling place could be construed as violating one or both laws and result in an arrest.
IMHO, no one with a lick of common sense would open carry at a polling place, but history in NC has shown otherwise. Worse, nationally it's becoming a larger trend, one with the express purpose of intimidating others, and that in no way can or should be defended as a legitimate or responsible use of a our 2A rights as it goes directly against the over arching intent of our Constitution and our most basic right of government by the people through the right to vote.
U
We can argue the semantics of "privilege" versus a right granted by the majority than can be removed by a majority.
But there is no argument that each and every right we have comes with a commensurate obligation to wield that right responsibly and with regard for the rights of others.
When we fail to use our rights responsibly with consideration for others we will inevitably lose that right.
In terms of the second amendment with concealed carry I can wield my 2A rights without intimidating others or making them feel uncomfortable. As such, open carry is *not* a requirement for me to have and exercise 2A rights.
It's the major area where I support Constitutional *concealed* carry as it allows exercising of 2A rights without infringing on the rights of others to feel safe and free from intimidation as they go about their daily public business.
We can argue the semantics of "privilege" versus a right granted by the majority than can be removed by a majority.
But there is no argument that each and every right we have comes with a commensurate obligation to wield that right responsibly and with regard for the rights of others.
When we fail to use our rights responsibly with consideration for others we will inevitably lose that right.
In terms of the second amendment with concealed carry I can wield my 2A rights without intimidating others or making them feel uncomfortable. As such, open carry is *not* a requirement for me to have and exercise 2A rights.
It's the major area where I support Constitutional *concealed* carry as it allows exercising of 2A rights without infringing on the rights of others to feel safe and free from intimidation as they go about their daily public business.
Last edited:
I'm hoping that's a tongue in cheek comment, but I'm not confident of that.
The problem is that the objection to ARs and semi autos is a mis perception by the public. They are for example used in far less than 1% of all gun crimes (long guns of all types are responsible for between 1 and 1.5% each year). "Assault weapons" are also only present at 16% of mass shootings.
Let's say they successfully ban ARs and semi autos and actually manage to confiscate them all. What then:
- mass shootings and gun violence won't decrease;
guns;
- the small percentage of mass shooters who want to use a long gun will discover the tactical advantage of lever action and pump action rifles (and POF is helping them evolve in that direction anyway with a tactical 9mm lever action);
- the public will suddenly realize and point out that while ARs were "bad" 86% of mass shootings and 98.5-99.0% of gun violence occur with hand gun so they are even worse and must also be banned ;
- they'll start with high capacity semis autos, and then regular semi autos;
- However when they discover how fast you can speed load a revolver with a bit of practice, they'll ban speed loaders, and then speed strips;
- they'll then discover the "New York reload" and ban anyone from owning or possessing more than one revolver; and
- then they'll just ban revolvers entirely, first the DA variety and then the single action variety.
——-
It makes more sense for us to defend our gun rights through our responsible behavior in exercising and promoting our gun rights but also in our support of things that actually underpin violence and gun violence. Things like:
- equal access to education;
- equal access to employment;
- promoting a regional and National, rather than global, economy that keeps jobs here in the US;
- supporting creation of livable wage and family supporting wage jobs;
- Eisenhower era tax policies that support the creation of American jobs with family supporting wages and benefits, rather than encouraging corporations to be run solely to increase share value; and
- access to actual affordable health and mental health care like we had 50 years ago (before well meaning but poorly envisioned things like de institutionalization, and before less well intentioned things like turning the medical, drug and insurances businesses into large for profit businesses operating solely to maximize profit for share holders.
kbm6893
Member
Those of us who denigrate these OC clowns aren't enemies of the 2A. We see defenders of it, because like it or not, those clowns change the attitude of citizens against gun owners. I live in PA, an OC state, and I see it maybe 3-4 times a year. And it's always some guy clearly looking to make a spectacle of himself. I saw one a few years ago at a gas station. My eyes were immediately drawn to the large Glock in a tactical thigh rig. Then I noticed his license plate. It read OPN CRRY. He's no ally of mine.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 9,199
- Reaction score
- 11,412
Good post.
- Status
Similar threads
