Rob Pincus Runs for NRA Board of Directors

Rob Pincus courtesy wn.com

TTAG contributor and I.C.E. Training proprietor Rob Pincus is running for a seat on the National Rifle Association board of directors. As he details at his web site, Rob figures being elected would enable him “to reach more people and, possibly, effect more change and positive movement. If elected, I would also do what I could to make the organization itself more responsive to the issue that I care most about in our community: Training, Education and Educating America’s Middle Ground on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and what it means to be a Responsible Firearms Owner.” Here’s his statement on his positions regarding open carry, constitutional carry and mandatory gun training . . .

Over the last few weeks, since I announced that I am running for the 76th Seat on the National Rifle Association’s Board of Directors, I have been ask to state or clarify my position on several topics. The three most frequent and relevant questions have been about topics related to training and carrying defensive firearms. While I have certainly opined on these issues before, I thought it would be helpful to put my thoughts into one article as people are making up their minds about whether or not to vote for me and/or support my campaign for a seat on board of the most important organization in our national fight to regain our 2nd Amendment Rights. In addition to my statements here, I’ve included links to some videos from the past that I have made that support & explain my positions.

Open Carry

While almost all of the public commentary I’ve seen since my announcement has been positive, the issue of Open Carry has been referenced in a handful of negative posts around the internet. The fact is that I have offended more than a couple of people over the past few years by clearing stating that I do not think confrontational open carry activism is the way to keep the Right to Keep and Bear Arms movement moving forward. Unfortunately, when I say ” I’m against confrontational open carry activism”, some people hear “I’m against open carry of a firearm being legal.”  What am I actually talking about ?  I’m talking about the guys who wear ARs and AKs slung over their shoulders and go to the mall, often without so much as a legitimate shopping agenda. I’m talking about the guys wearing camouflage and long guns walking through city parks because they can. I’m talking about the guy who took a shotgun to the public library and sat down to read in the children’s section “just because he could.” I’m talking about the countless videos of people made of themselves being “harassed” by local police after they purposefully put on a gun and carried the video camera looking for a confrontation (yes, these are specifically the people who got the right to OC even an unloaded gun taken away from us in California… a state that has just recently seen a massive turn towards Shall Issue Carry Permits!).

My stance on OC Activism has its roots in one simple statement: I believe that guns should be carried for the purpose of defending yourself or others.  That’s it… pretty simple, right?  I don’t think that putting a gun on your hip so that you can educate someone is a good idea. I certainly don’t think that Pro-Safety, Pro-Defense and Anti-Crime individuals should be consciously distracting local police officers from dealing with more important issues than someone poorly exercising a legal right. There are many ways to educate people about the legitimacy of carrying a gun. Wear a t-shirt, get a tattoo, hand out flyers on the street corner. Worried about educating local police about legal rights (firearms or otherwise)?  Prepare a presentation and ask to speak to a shift meeting or address a collection of supervisors. That doesn’t work? Fine, again, prepare a flyer with code sections, citations and helpful pictures then give one to every police officer you see. 5 minutes of solid thought should be able to yield many options to make a difference that don’t revolve around the combination of a lethal device and confrontation. As for the legality of Open Carry, I am 100% all for it and you can’t find an example of me ever stating otherwise. As for Open Carry being a good option for guns that are carried for personal defense, I don’t think that it is a good idea. A quick google search will reveal that just about every instructor in the industry is in agreement on this issue and the reasons are many. For more of my thoughts on the issue, as pertains to defensive firearms, check out these videos:

“Constitutional Carry”

I am 100% for the right of anyone who can legally own a firearm to be allowed to legally carry it for defensive purposes. That is how I interpret a state not requiring anyone to obtain a special permit to carry a firearm. Vermont, Alaska and, most recently, Arizona allow this to happen and most of us in the RKBA Community refer to this as “Constitutional Carry”… the opportunity to carry a firearm without “infringement”.  Of course, to suggest that a 100% literal interpretation of “shall not be infringed” line is an option isn’t very realistic either. Clearly, even the most die hard pro-gun advocate isn’t going to suggest free legal access to firearms for a convicted violent felon or a clearly mentally unstable person. I won’t simply wave around a copy of the Bill of Rights to justify my support of Constitutional Carry.  I believe that Carry Permit Laws exists to tax and inconvenience people who are seeking to exercise their right, and meet their responsibility, to be capable of defending themselves. I do not think that the process involved in getting a concealed carry permit has any significant positive effect on gun safety, crime prevention or the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. While this entire video is only available to PDN Premium Members, you can get the point of my position in the Free Preview: http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/vtag/constitutional-carry/

Mandatory Gun Training

As someone who’s primary source of income for most of his adult life has been teaching people defensive firearms skills, it surprises some people that I am Against Mandatory Firearms Training in order to own, purchase or carry a firearm of any kind. I am unaware of any state mandated program that meets the total amount of education I think someone should get before they choose to carry a firearm for defense. Presentation from the Holster, for example, is a fundamental skill that anyone and everyone should develop before they ever believe that it is appropriate for them to carry a firearm in public for defensive purposes. Yet, how many state permit processes require it? If you talked to 10 instructors, you’d get 10 different lists of things that any reasonable person should learn and practice before carrying a gun. I honestly have no faith in an administrative bureaucracy to develop an adequate mandated course that would be practical on the scale necessary. If I were given the choice tomorrow between establishing a national standard and designing it myself or abolishing training requirements, I would choose the latter. I believe that when you give someone a certificate of training (especially with a  permit to do something) those people often believe that they have met their obligation, that the obligation was designed appropriately and they do not need to do anything else. Put simply: Most people have too much faith in the Government.  They operate under the illusion that simply because their state trusts the process, the process must be good enough. I think that if you take away that illusion, if you take away the opportunity for people to believe that they have done enough, people will seek out more training than could ever be mandated. I think the surge in public opinion inside the firearms community about the value of getting thorough professional training and conducting relatively frequent practice would be overwhelming. Counter-Intuitively, I believe that removing mandatory minimum training would result in an over-all increase in the average amount of training and practice that people carrying guns have.

Disagree?  Hear from a couple of students that I had (in Arizona) a few months ago on why they have sought out training beyond what is required and/or offered by the government:

Let’s step away from CCW Permits and Defensive Carry for a moment, what about general firearms safety education? I am For Mandatory Firearms Safety Education for Children in our Public School System.  For well over a decade, I have lamented the public education industry’s position on the danger of firearms being completely inconsistent with their position on any other “dangerous” topic. Drugs?  Danger=Education. Smoking? Danger=Education. Sexually Transmitted Disease? Danger=Education. Guns? Danger=Demonization. Those who establish the standards for our children’s education in our country would honestly rather talk about sex with middle schoolers than guns. And, if the kids themselves talk about guns, then they will get punished in one way or another… “for their own safety”. It’s ridiculous and it is a hypocritical position that is untenable in the face of any logical inquiry or critical thought. Yes, of course, guns can be dangerous… our kids should be educated about them at least as equally as they are educated about drugs, cars, fire and running with scissors.

comments

  1. He has my vote and my support. The confrontational OC bozos will be hating on Rob, all the more reason to support him.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      His stance on open carry is exactly the same as mine:

      Open carry = great.

      Open carry + being a d*ck about it = being a d*ck.

      But putting it so bluntly isn’t likely to get someone elected.

      1. avatar JR says:

        I don’t know man, I think I’d find the campaign slogan

        “Vote for me – the other guy is a d*ck”

        Rather refreshing compared to what we have now most of the time.

      2. avatar ThomasR says:

        I agree; I’ve OC’d for over four years here in NM, most of the time in Albuquerque; a metro area of over 500,000 people. Except for two people in those years, never a negative encounter with other citizens or the police.

        I believe that for me to OC has been a positive experience, for me and the people around me; both as an education in normalization, as a deterrent, and as an expression of what it is to a free person in the greatest country on the planet.

        Rob Pincus has good beliefs on constitutional carry and not having mandatory training for owning and carrying a weapon; he’s wrong about OC being irresponsible.

    2. avatar Mighty Mo says:

      I like Rob, he seams intelligent and practical. I just wish that he would maybe modify his message on OC to say that “smart OC is OK”. Yes he says it’s ok when there’s no other option or when hunting, or whatever but, then goes on to say that we’re basically being irresponsible by not concealing. There is such a thing as gun normalization and I do think it’s a good thing for us. We lost California because it is full of liberal freaks (sorry – true). OC was an obvious and convenient excuse to further the gun grabber agenda IN THAT STATE. Here in Missouri I OC almost everyday and find it to be great. All of my experiences with the curious have been positive and great. I will concede that walking into a C-store at 3am in a high crime area would provide a distinct tactical disadvantage and I don’t do that. However, for normal everyday type stuff in generally safe areas that you are familiar with, it’s no problem. Yes I would love to see the confrontation seeking youtube morons go away but, to say that everyday normal joes like me are irresponsible is wrong. A right unexercised is in fact a right lost.

      1. Where are you in Missouri?

        The problem in many areas is that while it may be legal according to state law it is not in various counties or cities.

        Would you open carry in downtown Saint Louis?

        1. avatar Mighty Mo says:

          No I would not OC in STL for a variety of reasons. To my knowledge it’s not even legal there. Mo is unique in that you can’t OC everywhere. I’m SW where it’s not only acceptable but, fairly normal. I will concede to Mr. Pincus that you have to be smart about it. I use the exact model of retention holster he showed @ 3 o’clock and would never go into a high crime area (or any area I’m unfamiliar with). That would probably be a recipe for disaster. I do CC everywhere that I can’t OC though. Including downtown STL when I go there.

      2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Sympathetic to your position…

        ” I believe that guns should be carried for the purpose of defending yourself or others…I don’t think that putting a gun on your hip so that you can educate someone is a good idea.”

        My thought when I read that was that the two need not be mutually exclusive.

      3. avatar JR says:

        I think the problem you and others are seeing with his “OC is irresponsible” stances is that you are taking it out of the context of WHY he thinks he/you/we are carrying in the first place:

        Self Defense.

        Rob thinks the reason to carry a gun is defensive gunfighting.

        For this purpose, Rob thinks OC is irresponsible.

        Irresponsible as in…not the best choice.

        Agree with that or not, it’s cool. But he’s NOT saying YOU are irresponsible (or anything else about you), nor is he saying there is anything wrong with it…just that it is not the best choice. Irresponsible is a logical conclusion (as a trainer), not an emotional one.

        To wit: We approach self defense with the underlying notion “the best choice for gear | tactic | is the responsible choice.” Hell, look at the caliber wars that crop up and some of the things people say.

        Then, it follows from that that choosing the non-best choice is almost by definition irresponsible. Not “bad” as a judgment, just not “best.”

        He’s thinking like a trainer who has analyzed tactical considerations a specific way and he’s communicating like that as well. His reputation lies in giving what he considers the best advice, and the best advice in such a case in the only “responsible” advice.

        You are thinking like a person that has looked at the same data and made a DIFFERENT choice but for perhaps different reasons. It’s not saying you are wrong and he is right, but he’s not JUST making the decision for himself – he’s giving advice to people who have not thought it all through themselves.

        At least that’s my read of this particular discussion.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          > We approach self defense with the underlying notion “the best choice for gear | tactic | is the responsible choice.” Then, it follows from that that choosing the non-best choice is almost by definition irresponsible. Hell, look at the caliber wars that crop up and some of the things people say.

          So carrying a .40 S&W or 45 ACP or .357 is irresponsible because most trainers think 9mm is better? Wow. Some of you people are a piece of work.

        2. avatar Charles5 says:

          That is pretty much how I see his position and I don’t have a problem with it.

        3. avatar JR says:

          Danny, that’s a purposeful misrepresentation of my point and you know it.

          For clarification: I was merely stating what he’s saying since there seems to be (and continue to be) a communication gap.

          The caliber thing is a nice try, though…I’ll give you that. Most reputable trainers don’t make specific caliber recommendations beyond stuff like saying 9mm is MINIMUM.

          Good grief, man, get a grip.

  2. avatar KMc says:

    Seems pretty reasonable, my vote as well.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      While he SEEMS like a reasonable fellow, and he may be a breath of fresh air to the NRA board, he has a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the wording and purpose of the Second Amendment that I cannot get past. In at least two of his points above he has stated specifically that he thinks the Second Amendment reads, “the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, except when…” This concerns me a great deal and puts me in the “No f-ing way” camp.

      He believes that the government, which is prohibited by the 2A from “infringing,” still has the authority to compile, maintain and enforce a list of American citizens who are not allowed, under penalty of law, to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I can understand a bunch of political hack legal scholars (SCOTUS) coming up with and supporting this idea, wrong as it is, but I cannot support a man running for the NRA board who entertains this fundamental misunderstanding.

      He also comes up with this knee-jerk OMG! about felons and the mentally ill having legal access to firearms. We (perhaps I) have been over this subject numerous times on this site. No amount of lobbying or media pontificating or Obamacare-sized 2,000 page long reams of legislation is going to affect a criminal or crazy who wants a gun in any way except to possibly make it more expensive and force them to the black market (or stealing from their mother) instead of the LGS. What such legislation WILL do is make it all the more onerous for the law-abiding citizen to learn and comply with another bunch of unconstitutional laws that might result in him becoming a criminal if he gets them wrong, even unwittingly, AND it further dilutes the absolute prohibition against government infringement.

      And while I tentatively agree that more training is better, in almost every case; Washington State has a shall-issue, no training required policy and there are precious few instances of problems with CPL holders. There are more incidents with supposedly well-trained law enforcement, actually. And, I’ve got to beat this drum one more time, there is NO requirement in the Second Amendment for training before exercising this natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right.

      The Second Amendment means exactly what it says and no more. It is a prohibition against government interference. No person running for office in a pro-gun lobbying organization who does not understand and agree to that is not in our best interest.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Don’t know what’s up with WordPress right now with the “Slow down, you’re posting too quickly” comment and for some time now not allowing me to edit a comment, but –

        “No person running for office in a pro-gun lobbying organization who does not understand and agree to that is not in our best interest.” Should have read:

        “Any person running for office in a pro-gun lobbying organization who does not understand and agree to that is not in our best interest.”

        1. avatar Dave says:

          I think you mean your best interest. You certainly don’t speak for me.

      2. avatar T-DOG says:

        Also with Washington state if you don’t get CPL you can still default to open carry with out any permit. The CPL does allow you to carry on your person concealed or open when in a car. It allows you to to buy a hand gun and leave with it that day. Other wise you have to do a 5 day waiting period. Rifles have no waiting period.

  3. avatar Alex Peters says:

    What he says makes a lot of sense.

  4. avatar Taylor Tx says:

    Id take Pincus over WLP as far as a face to help normalize and educate about firearms. Good to see people in the gun community taking action.

    1. avatar ShaunL. says:

      I’d agree. Pincus seems much more attainable as a person than WLP….. to me anyway.

      Pincus seems like the guy you could actually just talk to without a secretary scheduling a meeting.

  5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    > what it means to be a Responsible Firearms Owner

    I don’t believe he is restating his position on open carry accurately. He has stated before that simply open carrying a pistol is not being a responsible firearms owner. He fits right in with the NRA who is also against open carry. They are prohibiting it at their convention in Indy next month, although they are stating that they are following Indiana law. Since IN law allows open carry, we are trying to get clarification on what exactly they will do when people show up open carrying. So far, no response to that particular question.

    1. You are deliberately misrepresenting Rob’s position on OC. Your comment is typical rabid OC advocate bull.

      Just watch the video Rob posted.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        I am referring to things Rob has stated elsewhere, not in his statement above or the video he posted.

        1. avatar JR says:

          If you read his above statement, you will see that he clarifies those exact “elsewhere” and largely misrepresent statements.

          (1) He thinks the purpose of carrying a hand gun is self defense.
          (2) He thinks OC is not the best tactical choice for that purpose

          Now, you can agree with either or both of these statements is true, but your claims and insinuations about his OC stance is a bit histrionic. You are extrapolating FAR beyond what he says.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Sources Danny… where are they? If you are going to make accusations or dismiss his character based on his actions we need something more than your thoughts and feelings.

      2. avatar Mighty Mo says:

        YOU watch the video dude…..he specifically says that OC is irresponsible. If you have a problem with OC then don’t F’n do it but, don’t go hating on those of us that do. The vast majority of us are not on youtube and the last thing we want is a confrontation with a cop. We do it because we think it’s the right thing to do.

        1. avatar Michael in GA says:

          Irresponsible and illegal are two different things. Rob is speaking from a tactical perspective. You should legally be allowed to open carry but there are two sides to the argument of whether you should. Listen to both sides and make your own decision. For Rob to say it is irresponsible is his opinion and the opinion of many CCW holders. He is not attacking you personally by calling you an idiot by doing it so don’t get so butt hurt about it and carry on.

        2. avatar Mighty Mo says:

          I have made my decision…….leave my butt out of this 🙂

    2. avatar Sam Spade says:

      I haven’t made up my mind yet. “I support OC, but” is awful close to “I support the 2A, but.” To many “for, buts” already.

      1. avatar Charles5 says:

        I disagree. I support legal drug use, but I think drug use is irresponsible. It takes a person of principles to respect rights of others even when they personally disagree with the decision to exercise those rights in one manner or another. If politicians would embrace that attitude, it change things in this country for the better overnight. I’m with Rob Pincus on this one.

        1. avatar JR says:

          Thank-you. Well said.

  6. avatar peirsonb says:

    Put simply: Most people have too much faith in the Government. They operate under the illusion that simply because their state trusts the process, the process must be good enough

    I think I’m in love….

  7. avatar EagleScout87 says:

    He’s got my vote!

  8. avatar Rokurota says:

    He would bring the median age of the Board down to 70.

  9. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Rob pretty much sums up my feelings on the subjects above. He’s got my vote.

  10. avatar Gregolas says:

    I will vote for Rob. He thinks before he speaks.

  11. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    Rob, just curious about something. I have been told by someone who knows you that you don’t even carry a gun 300 days out of the year. Is that true? This is something that might influence someone’s vote .

    1. avatar JR says:

      Why in hell would that matter?

      Don’t we go on and on all the time about that being a personal decision?

      There is no doubt that Rob Pincus is pro-2A and an established name in the firearms community.

      He’s also not afraid to p*ss people off, which the leadership of the NRA needs right now.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        > Why in hell would that matter?

        There are gun owners who are staunch hunters but don’t believe in all that “concealed carry” nonsense. It might matter to them. It might matter to gun owners who carry for self-defense 365, and who might view a self-defense trainer who doesn’t carry himself differently. Just asking the question of a candidate. Is that not allowable?

        1. avatar JR says:

          “I have been told by someone who knows you that you don’t even carry a gun 300 days out of the year. Is that true?”

          But you are NOT asking him what he believes or supports … you are asking what he does.

          And snarkily so, in my opinion.

          Why do you care if he himself carries? And why on earth would he feel inclined to tell you, given it is clear he leans toward the “concealed” side of carry.

          He supports carrying firearms. He cannot say it any more clearly than that. I think you need to step back from “the cause” and look at practical reality a little bit.

        2. avatar Sam Spade says:

          It matters because we have too many people who don’t practice what they preach. I would like to know that he’s running to protect my rights, or to promote his company. That he may be a hypocrite will affect my vote.

        3. avatar JR says:

          Gonna be honest, here. This is your main worry on voting for an NRA board member?

          It’s too narrow.

          What Rob is or is not carrying is nobody’s business but Rob’s. It has no bearing on his being an effective NRA board member here in the real world.

          Or, are you saying that you would only vote for someone on the board that agrees with every thing you think?

          If you want that, you are going to run for the board yourself, because that’s the ONLY person on the planet that fits that parameter.

      2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        > There is no doubt that Rob Pincus is pro-2A and an established name in the firearms community. He’s also not afraid to p*ss people off

        The same can be said about James Yeager.

        1. avatar JR says:

          True, but this is getting tiresome.

          There’s a big difference between not being afraid to anger people and purposefully doing.

          I’m starting to think you are just trolling, because this is pretty obtuse reasoning.

          Vote for him or not. Your choice. I really don’t care.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          > There’s a big difference between not being afraid to anger people and purposefully doing.

          I would agree with this statement.

    2. Danny, what is your connection to Michigan Open Carry, Inc. ?

      Also readers should be aware that Danny Griffin is one of the OC fanatics that goes out of his way to provoke confrontations with LEOs and private citizens. Just Google him.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Thanks for that. It doesn’t automatically negate his points or questions, but it does provide some considerable perspective.

        1. avatar Michael B. says:

          See: below

          I don’t know who’s telling the truth here but if Paul McCain is lying about some guy there should be consequences.

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Oh, I didn’t file it under “believe what McCain says,” I filed it under “this could use some more research.” McCain made a statement. If my research finds it to be true, that tells me something about Rob’s detractor. If I find it to be untrue, well, that tells me something about McCain. Win-win.

        3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          > if Paul McCain is lying about some guy there should be consequences.

          Michael B., Paul McCain is lying.

        4. avatar Anonymous says:

          Phhhhhht. You want perspective? It is well known here at TTAG that Paul T. McCain is Anti-Open Carry

          Why should McCains statement about Danny carry any more weight than our knowledge of McCain himself???

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/08/robert-farago/another-pointless-open-carry-encounter/#comment-1213785

          You guys need to stop with the riff-raff. Focus on what is actually there. Pincus does not support open carry for the purposes of harassing people or cops. Pincus supports polite and open carry. Paul T. McCain does not support any kind of open carry. Danny Griffin supports absolute open carry of any kind no matter the interpretation to others. Now that everyone has soaked that crap up, get over it and move on.

        5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Anonymous, see below.

      2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        What an odd statement. I’ve never gone out of my way to provoke confrontations with LEOs or private citizens. In fact, I’ve never had a single one. In open carrying daily for over three years, I’ve never even had a police officer approach me. All my citizen encounters have been positive. But truthfully, most don’t even notice.

        Yeah, google me. Maybe you’ll read some of my pieces published on Ammoland or elsewhere. 🙂 How about you?

        1. Danny, what is your connection to Michigan Open Carry, Inc. ?

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Paul, I am a member of Michigan Open Carry, and have been for a few years. I am not on the board, nor a regional coordinator, or anything, if that’s what you’re thinking.

        3. Dannie, in fact, you are a charter member of MOC, having joined it in 2009. MOC has as part of its methods public gatherings with open carrying to desensitize the public and members of the LEO.

          It is my opinion that this kind of activity is an irresponsible OC activity.

          So maybe next time you go after Pincus you will be a bit more forthcoming about your biases here.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          > Dannie, in fact, you are a charter member of MOC, having joined it in 2009.

          Another lie, Paul. Here is a list of MOC’s charter members:

          http://miopencarry.org/?q=node/13

          Unfortunately it doesn’t list last names, but there is only one Dan, it is not me, and is not 2009. I happened to join August 18, 2011 not that it makes any difference. And you think open carry is irresponsible behavior by gun owners. Your opinion is noted. I disagree.

        5. avatar Mighty Mo says:

          PTM…..I have no issue with your stance on the video grabbers looking for attention. I’m on board w/ that. Please however explain how that:

          “MOC has as part of its methods public gatherings with open carrying to desensitize the public and members of the LEO.”

          is a bad thing for us. I’m curious. Are they out making a public spectacle of themselves or just trying to advance our agenda? I don’t see it as a bad thing if they are doing it in a respectful manor and distributing info to the public. If it were me and I were organizing such a thing (I don’t) I also think it would be appropriate to notify authorities to eliminate any confusion. Just my two cents.

        6. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Mighty Mo

          > Please however explain how that…is a bad thing for us. I’m curious. Are they out making a public spectacle of themselves or just trying to advance our agenda?

          It’s not. We hold picnics and such.

          > If it were me and I were organizing such a thing (I don’t) I also think it would be appropriate to notify authorities to eliminate any confusion.

          Actually here’s an event that was covered by the local news. There were over 200 open carriers in attendance. Notify authorities? We publicly invited the mayor of Grand Rapids! (He hates gun owners). Lots of pics in the article.

          http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/open-carry_picnic_brings_200_i.html

          Lots of young families OCing, too. Here’s some pics that didn’t make it into the news (personal pics):

          https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1272990_10151704766101234_1445677500_o.jpg
          https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/575318_10151704759556234_767177695_n.jpg

          Yeah, we OCers are evil, all right.

        7. avatar Mighty Mo says:

          Danny: Sounds good to me. if that’s the extent of what you guys are doing I can’t imagine anyone on here having a problem with it but, obviously they do……

        8. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          > Danny: Sounds good to me. if that’s the extent of what you guys are doing I can’t imagine anyone on here having a problem with it.

          Mighty Mo, we even have Michigan legislators attend some of our functions. But we do more than that. We actually work very closely with the Michigan legislature on new pro-2A legislation. We are currently getting our “brandishing” law clarified so law enforcement can’t use that as a tool against lawful gun owners like is happening in Texas. We successfully fought a lawsuit that went all the way up to the State of Michigan Supreme Court. We now have case law on our (gun owners) side. State law completely occupies the field of firearms regulation, and now no city, town, municipality, authority, or quasi-municipal corporation has authority on its own to ban firearms.

          Over $100,000 of taxpayer money was wasted fighting us.

          The NRA didn’t lift one finger to help us.

        9. avatar JR says:

          “The NRA didn’t lift one finger to help us.”

          Well, then, there is a better question for Rob than if/what he carries in my opinion.

          “As an NRA board member, will you work to extend NRA support to OC-ers even though OC does not fit your personal firearms use profile?”

          Or something like that?

          That’s a SERIOUS issue. The NRA should, I believe, show solidarity on 2A rights, period.

        10. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Will you guys please take it outside?

        11. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          > “As an NRA board member, will you work to extend NRA support to OC-ers even though OC does not fit your personal firearms use profile?” Or something like that? That’s a SERIOUS issue. The NRA should, I believe, show solidarity on 2A rights, period.

          JR, this is a good point. Would Rob buck the NRA leadership and support OC?

          I’d like to make one clarification for you, though. When I stated that the NRA didn’t lift one finger to help us, that case affected **all** MI gun owners who carry for self-defense, not just OCers. We fought for CC and OC rights, both. Had we lost, concealed carriers would also have had their carry rights severely restricted. There are a lot more CCers than OCers, but no CC group would assist in the fight, either. It’s like what I’ve heard some CCers say, “I’d like to OC but I don’t want the hassle from police.” Or in this case, I’d like to help, but I don’t want to contribute to your legal fund, even though if you lose I’m equally affected. If no one was willing to stand up for 2A rights, where would we be? Most people are willing to sit on the sidelines and let someone else fund the lawsuits, let someone else work on getting pro-2A bills passed in their state, let someone else get unlawfully arrested to further case law.

          Yes, you’re welcome.

          So Rob, if elected, would you fight for OC rights? Or better yet, would you fight for NRA support of gun-owners at the local level instead of waiting until it almost becomes a state-wide disaster or national priority? And would you fight for more money going to the NRA-ILA to work on lobbying, etc. instead of the measly 4% it now gets? Yes, lots of good questions.

      3. avatar Jared says:

        Paul,

        You are aware that the only way to carry into certain places in Michigan is to carry openly with a concealed carry license, right?

        This is the only way people can carry a gun and go pick up their kid at school, this is the only way a designated driver can carry at a place where the primary sales are liquor by the glass, this is the only to carry while picking up your child from a day care center in Michigan.

        I’m not sure what state you are from but in Michigan this is the reality of anti-gun policies that restricted concealed carry long before Michigan Open Carry came around.

        I’ve never head to deal with these restrictions because I’m exempt, but for other people, including yourself (if you live in MI and are not exempt) you have to comply or go to prison, if you have to defend yourself and you are illegally conceal carrying in these places, MI’s stand your ground law wouldn’t apply to you.

        I have almost no CCW restrictions (can carry on a commercial plane) and I anywhere in the U.S. or it’s territories or possessions and I still understand the open carry movement in Michigan.

        1. avatar peirsonb says:

          Not arguing, them’s the facts for MI. I know there is an MSP opinion on the open carry with CPL deal, but I haven’t been able to find anything saying that’s actually been back up in court. Has there been? Or is the MSP opinion binding?

    3. avatar Mighty Mo says:

      @Mr. McCain….I will agree with you if Danny is one of those “confrontational youtube nuts”…..just please keep in perspective that MOST of the OC community is not out looking for hits on youtube. I do not advocate this and don’t do it. I just don’t want the vast majority of OCers out there to get lumped in with the Leonard Embodies of the world. Looking for a fight / argument with a cop is a bad idea. OCing is not.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        No, MM, Paul is lying. I don’t carry a video camera and have never once been confronted by law enforcement. I don’t OC long guns. The most controversial thing I do is carry a Five-seveN. 😀

        1. On your channel you are very clearly supporting the kind of OC stunts Pincus is talking about. See Dannie’s comments on OC videos.

          Again, it goes to motive in your attack on Pincus.

        2. avatar Mighty Mo says:

          I don’t take issue with you as I don’t know you and don’t know what you do. I do take issue w/ OC haters who think we’re all out looking for a fight. That’s not the case.

        3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Paul, I don’t have a youtube channel. I’ve never posted a video of me or anyone else. If you’re referring to MOC’s youtube channel:

          https://www.youtube.com/user/MiOpenCarry/videos

          we are not advocating being confrontational, nor do we advocate carrying long guns. I don’t think I even commented on any of our videos, which are mostly educational.

          And how is all of this related to Rob Pincus’ running for an NRA position?

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          I have a youtube login ID so I can post comments on videos, I do not have my own video channel. If you click on my name you can see what I wrote on OTHER PEOPLE’s channels in response to their videos. And it’s mostly music-related. I have never posted a single video. I have not set up a video channel.

          And if you bother to read my comments on OTHER PEOPLE’s VIDEOs, you’ll see that they usually revolve around facts and the law. Something you would do well to stick to yourself.

        5. Yes that is my point. You clearly support the “make a scene” approach as documented by your comments on confrontational OC videos.

          Your attempt to quibble over nomenclature, channel or ID notwithstanding, you have proven my point.

        6. avatar J from Texas says:

          The lack of reading comprehension and ignorance about the way Youtube works combined with using it as evidence to support untrue claims about this guy is just staggering. I can think of another group that does this. Then you just double and triple down when you are proven wrong instead of apologizing to Danny. What would Jesus do?

        7. avatar Mighty Mo says:

          I tend to agree…….show us the videos that show Danny making an ass of himself to an LEO. Otherwise just let it go. We get that you’re against OC…….point taken.

        8. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          > You clearly support the “make a scene” approach as documented by your comments on confrontational OC videos.

          Paul, nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t support confrontational OC. In fact, I advocate not getting into legal arguments on the street with law enforcement. My stated position is not to engage law enforcement, period. Don’t get into 20 questions with them, and don’t try to teach them the law. Just go about your business like the law-abiding gun owner you are. There are thousands of open carriers who go quietly about our daily business, but you don’t hear about us because we aren’t among the small handful of people who you do hear about.

          What you are increasingly hearing about is the number of cities and PDs who are losing lawsuits or settling out of court with OCers for unlawfully harassing or even arresting them. Colorado Springs just settled with an OCer for $23,500. The city of Grand Rapids is being sued right now for $600K because the mayor there keeps trying to enforce an unlawful city ordinance against carrying a firearm. He has come right out and said that he doesn’t care about the city’s unlawful and unenforceable prohibition on guns. Even though the city attorney right now is spending an inordinate amount of time getting rid of old laws on the books like “no person shall willfully annoy another person.”

    4. avatar Rob Pincus says:

      The respecting others rights to make bad decisions comment was spot on…

    5. avatar Rob Pincus says:

      Ha! I don’t know who told you that….. But: I TRAVEL 300+ days a year, which sometimes prevents me from carrying. For example, I’m in Germany right now (heading home tomorrow from a visit based on attending the European version of SHOT Show). That said, I travel to many places that I can carry. I don’t track how many days I do… but, I’m sure it is north of 65! 🙂

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Fair enough, Rob. 😀

        Seriously, though, I would like to see instructors instruct. Your opinions on carry and tactics are valuable, that’s why we take your classes. But my preference would be more along the lines of, “I don’t advocate open carry because you’ll be the first one shot at the mall, and reason #2 and reason #3. If you choose to CC, here’s how you can do safely and effectively. However, if you chose to OC, here’s how you can do it safely and effectively.” I think Erik “Trek” Utrecht has stated a pretty good position.

        “I fully support those who do responsibly open carry but don’t personally choose to do so when concealed carry is available. The only reason for me is the PITA of having to keep that thing away from others’ reach or my back to a wall. Having to use a stall just to take a piss like I did as a cop sucks…I think more people should, but sadly most can’t handle the SA required to do it properly (plus the tendency for many to be a complete soup sandwich when selecting carry gear) – oh, and as an aside, CNN just played a clip of the cops in Santa Monica saying ‘report any armed people’….sucks to be a good normal guy OC’ing when LE says that to the masses…” Erik Utrecht, Michigan Defensive Firearms Institute.

        And while I’m at it, here’s another comment from a nationally know trainer:

        “Open carry is one of our fundamental liberties under the Second Amendment. Government legally mandates and regulates us to have insurance when we drive amongst the masses. I train and carry to protect myself and others from the masses since our government cannot. Open carry quickly sets a precedence amongst others. It represents an overt hard target and lets those willing to commit crimes that immediate consequence will result from said activities. That same precedence is seen in states that have must issue concealed carry permits. On a macro level it’s only divisive if it is not socially acceptable. There are places like Arizona where nobody thinks twice about it. It can be divisive but it is an extension of our fundamental liberties.” Michael Lamb, Stoic Ventures

        I travel for work a lot, too. I spent 80 days living in hotels last year. I know the challenge of traveling with a firearm and carrying in other states. But out of the country, yeah, whole ‘nother ballgame.

        1. avatar Dave says:

          If you really think Rob is doing something wrong than why don’t you start up your own training company, group, school, etc….?

        2. Dave: Spot on.

          Danny was so eager to try to ambush Pincus he talked himself right into a corner.

        3. avatar Dave says:

          Paul,
          I would say the same applies to you; I’m not a fan of you and your tattoo-hating-I’m-better-than-everyone-else-because-I-say-so-mentality. I know you already impart your wisdom on shooters, but I’m not picking sides in the Danny vs Paul fight.

          What I really dislike is that you and Danny hijacked this article and turned it into a mud-slinging contest. I really just want to see the two of you go at it. No weapons, guns, blades, blunt instruments, etc… You can choose UFC or Pride rules. First one knocked out or that submits loses. The first annual TTAG Commentator Beat Down. OC vs CC. The winner has ultimate bragging rights. How about it? Are the two of you game? Get out from behind those keyboards and let’s do this.

  12. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    How many votes do you get? I know Joe Debergalis and Todd Rathner are good too… and they’re already on the ballot. I think Pincus would be a write in. Is that correct?

    1. avatar Rob Pincus says:

      Twenty Five, total.. voting for 25 on the ballot and then writing me in actually invalidates the ballot. Thanks!

  13. avatar juliesa says:

    I can agree with all of that, although I think organized open carry rallies can be helpful, as opposed to random people walking around with guns provoking the populace.

    I sure like Rob’s videos too.

    BTW, one person to beware of who wants to run for the board is former SEAL Brandon Webb. I hate to badmouth anyone, but some of his positions are completely unacceptable.

    1. avatar juliesa says:

      Clarification: Webb intends to run next year.

  14. avatar dwb says:

    Massad Ayoob endorsed him: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2014/03/14/we-pause-for-a-brief-announcement/

    Glad to see some actual common sense about open carry.

  15. avatar JR says:

    Rob gets my vote.

  16. avatar mrvco says:

    “I am For Mandatory Firearms Safety Education for Children in our Public School System.”

    Exactly.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      I’m for NO Federal (or state) mandates of ANYTHING in local public schools,. Granddaddy paid for and could run the local schools just fine. Actually a hell of a lot more effectively, and with better output, than what passes for education today.

      If it is a good idea to provide widespread gun safety ed, and it is, get your Eddie Eagle stuff and put on voluntary program at your local school/area. No gov’t input is needed.

      1. avatar Jay Williams says:

        Agreed. No government schools! But as long as government schools are around, why should we make more laws? Eddie Eagle and other volunteer education is the way to go.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Granddaddy paid for and could run the local schools just fine.
        Is that why Lil’ Bubba can’t read or write a complete sentence? There HAS to be a minimum sometimes.

    2. avatar dwb says:

      If this happened some Moms would be Demanding Action to clean their underpants.

  17. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    too bad he didn’t have this out before I mailed in my ballot yesterday . . . .

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      Vote again under Dirk Duggler. Works in presidential elections.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      You can request another ballot, I believe.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Yeah, mine went out last week.

  18. avatar Michael B. says:

    (yes, these are specifically the people who got the right to OC even an unloaded gun taken away from us in California… a state that has just recently seen a massive turn towards Shall Issue Carry Permits!).

    1. Victim blaming.

    2. Massive turn? The courts had to tell them to stop being jackasses, so don’t act like there’s a bunch of on-the-fence democratic legislators in CA who suddenly saw the light.

    1. avatar Charles5 says:

      No, there weren’t any on-the-fence legislators that saw the light, but the Activist OC crowd gave them the fuel they needed for their fire.

    2. The Ninth Circuit decision in favor of shall issue came about because of the open carry activists. it would not have happened if California had not banned open carry.

      The activists pushed the state to honor their rights or ban them. They banned them, and the Ninth Circuit told the state that was a step too far.

  19. avatar John Thompson says:

    “yes, these are specifically the people who got the right to OC even an unloaded gun taken away from us in California”

    No, the people who took away your rights are the legislature in California, because people dared to stick up for their rights and make others uncomfortable.

    I don’t open carry, in fact, I don’t own a handgun. But I believe in the constitution and the bill of rights. The constitution grants us liberty, not comfortable situations.

    1. avatar JR says:

      From the article above:

      “As for the legality of Open Carry, I am 100% all for it and you can’t find an example of me ever stating otherwise.” –Rob Pincus

      Seems like you and Rob agree on that point.

      What’s the problem?

    2. avatar Michael B. says:

      Don’t do something massa forgot was legal because massa might get offended and ban it.

      Don’t take your high-capacity magazines to the range because massa forgot they were legal and might ban them.

      The drunks were to blame for Prohibition.

      It’s cowardly and dishonest to not place blame on the anti-gun legislators in CA who are itching to ban anything gun-related that they can get away with.

  20. avatar neiowa says:

    So he is of the Peoples Rep of Kalifornia?

    100% literal interpretation of “shall not be infringed” I understand that rather clearly. Also – “Thou shalt not murder”, “NUTS”, “read my lips”, “if you like your current health insurance…”

  21. avatar DisThunder says:

    I could easily get behind you, Rob. No, not that way. Okay, well, maybe not ever, but we’ve just met.
    Sure, I’m not in 100% agreement with everything, but I sure as hell don’t agree with Wayne all the time either, and I’m still paying my dues.
    For those who take issue with your open carry stance, which I can understand, I offer this: Once we’ve successfully beaten back at least some of the other ways the control establishment has hit us with, Open Carry can take a front seat and we can work it. But as it sits right now, the fact that if I needed my carry gun right this second, I’d have to sprint to the parking lot first, or most people on this blogs kids’ are sitting in a classroom with nothing but well wishes and happy thoughts keeping them safe, I’ say we’ve got some higher priorities to tackle first.
    I’m not saying it isn’t important, or a fundamental right, because it’s both of those things, but we’ve really got to stop the thoracic bleeding injury before we set that broken leg.

  22. avatar IdahoPete says:

    He has my vote – speaking as an OFWG Benefactor member of the NRA. Sure sounds like “common sense gun laws” to me.

  23. avatar BDub says:

    Nice platform.

  24. avatar Michael in GA says:

    Forget board member…I want him to be the president!

  25. avatar AaronW says:

    Might want to vote for Anthony Colandro, too. He has a great podcast and is a VERY strong 2A advocate.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Thanks for this. It’s sometimes hard to know who they all are. Takes some work to dig it up.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Did that.

  26. avatar Jared says:

    I’m voting for Rob… and I’m extremely supportive of Open carry and I understand the case law behind it, the so called “loopholes” in many states like NV, NE, MI, OH etc. I’m also happy for the unintended positive reinforcement that has been done to the 4th Amendment (another endangered right) due to open carry.

    If it’s fair to blame OC’ers and lump them all in the same basket then one must agree that AK-47’s have no place in California or society because of what Patrick Purdy did. It’s amazing how people view things in a collectivist lens when they don’t like something, but when they do like something, they are as individualistic as possible (ie. not all gun owners are criminals or killers etc.)

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    I wouldn’t vote for Pincus if he was running unopposed. He’s nothing more than a tactical FUDD.

    1. avatar Jared says:

      LOL. I’d take Rob over Yeager. If one tactician has to be on the board, then it may be more presentable to have Rob on it instead of the Yeager.

      1. avatar Mighty Mo says:

        Oh come on!!! James “I can’t control my temper” Yeager got his CCW back. Where’s the love?!?!

    2. avatar Michael B. says:

      +1

      1. MichaelB should run in order to represent the Internet keyboard commando shooting community.

    3. Ralph would you please provide your credentials so we can evaluate your qualifications to judge Pincus?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Sure. Meanwhile, can you please provide me with your credentials so we can evaluate your qualifications to judge the word of god?

        Behold the prophet from St. Louis.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          <closes his eyes and silently, slowly shakes his head>

          Damn.

      2. avatar Dave357 says:

        There are two basic skills involved: (a) how to read, (b) how to read between the lines. Ralph has had opportunity to demonstrate his competence in both.

      3. avatar Dave357 says:

        And on the subject of open carry, whatever one thinks of it otherwise, no one can argue with the fact that it had come in handy in the Peruta case.

  28. avatar J from Texas says:

    He may get my vote. I have less to disagree with him at this point than the NRA as a whole. I am neutral on the open carry for purpose of a reaction. I have seen it be confrontational and educational. I have yet to see evidence of it helping or hurting gun rights. It isn’t something I want to do but I have no issue with someone that does. See how that works? Kind of like saying if you don’t like guns then don’t own one but quit trying to ban them.

  29. avatar Anonymous says:

    Jesus. This article should be named Days of our lives: the Paul T. McCain – Danny Griffin edition

    What a pile of garbage windbaggery in the comments section this time. Would have been a lot better if they didn’t waste all their words painting graffiti all over each others reputation with accusations and character attacks. There are pros and cons to open carry and pros and cons to concealed carry. Suck it up and get over it.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      On behalf of the Internet, thank you.

  30. avatar Tokamak says:

    Everybody seems to be focused on the OC issue. That’s important but, my guess is that there is a lot more for an NRA board member to deal with. Rob’s thoughts on firearm education in schools would seem to be way more important. That will probably have a greater effect long term. Besides, I miss Eddy Eagle. 🙂
    He gets my vote. He’s sharp.

  31. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    Anonymous, that thread you referenced is a great example of both the type of some people who post at TTAG and the lack of understanding many have. Someone named Nordic posted that folks too scared to step outside their front door without carrying a gun for self-defense are ‘pantywaists,’ and “I along with most everyone else from the civilized world can go about my daily business without being armed 24/7. It’s not the wild west anymore and it’s not beyond thunderdome. Save your gun for the home, the shooting range, or for a hunting trip.” We call those people FUDDS. They believe that firearms are only for sport, and maybe, just maybe, self-defense if your home is invaded and your wife or daughter are getting raped.

    Then we have others in that thread (and some have posted here) who have zero clue as to why people in Texas are openly carrying AR-15s or other long guns on marches, at the capitol, the Alamo, or elsewhere. It isn’t about projecting being a “tough guy” or gal (lots of women have been doing this). It is about public awareness and getting Texas’ draconian gun laws changed. And, no, this isn’t the only thing they are doing. They are also working with Lavender and others in the Texas legislature on getting those laws changed. Just like they have been for several sessions. But public awareness is part of it. They have proof that Texas law enforcement is conspiring against them. Before one publicly announced rally, a major metropolitan police force met to figure out how they could arrest the OCers since what they were doing was legal. They decided to arrest them for trying to “threaten” others, and that’s the tactic they’ve been using. Except for instances like the Alamo gathering where there were hundreds of people there, and they just stood by and watched. The lawmakers who wrote that law have come out publicly and stated that that is not the intention of the law, that the police are misapplying it and using it as a threat against lawful and law-abiding gun owners. But many fellow gun owners don’t get it and want those “show offs” locked up.

    Amazing.

    1. avatar JR says:

      “But many fellow gun owners don’t get it and want those “show offs” locked up.”

      For the record, I am not against any legal OC. I make no judgment of those that legally OC for any reason. Their choice. I even have posted some VERY pro-OC comments in various threads in the past.

      Just to get that out there, since it is possible that what I’m about to ask might be misinterpreted (or that earlier comments on this page be misinterpreted).

      My question: Where in on this page or in Pincus’ statement has it been claimed that OC-ers should be locked up for legal open carry?

      You make the claim that “many” gun owners believe this; is this based on those that commonly post here at TTAG or a different sample set?

      I’m genuinely curious, because I don’t get that from the group here at ALL, even from those that disagree with OC.

      If a gun owner makes that claim, I would seriously question their commitment to the 2A at any level, and suggest they are a gun owner but not a gun rights supporter at ALL.

      (I concede that I’ve seen comments that say stuff like “He should have been arrested for legal open carry for …” but I often wonder if those do not mostly originate from astroturfers and spying trolls).

      So again…genuinely curious. Are there really a lot of gun owners that think OC-ers should be locked up for LEGAL OC? And follow-up…are there a lot that you think would actively campaign for making OC illegal?

      Sadly, this seems like it might be a pretty divisive issue within our ranks…an issue that could be a tool used by the pure anti’s.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        > My question: Where in on this page or in Pincus’ statement has it been claimed that OC-ers should be locked up for legal open carry?

        Not on this page or in any of Pincus’ statements, nor did I state it was. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I think you are right, though, OC can be a divisive issue, but it doesn’t have to be. But then so can most pro-2A stances. I talk to gun owners (hunters) all the time who think concealed carry is crazy, and that guns are only for hunting or other sport such as trap/skeet.

        On one law enforcement website, a LEO vilified the NRA because it wouldn’t compromise on “assault rifles.” His position was that the NRA should embrace “common-sense” gun control. He said the NRA was radical and “not your father’s NRA.”

        NRA President James W. Porter II wrote an article recently about the “Weapons of War” and about how gun owners are our own worst enemies.

        http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/10/nra-president-the-weapons-of-war-big-lie/

        1. avatar JR says:

          “Not on this page or in any of Pincus’ statements, nor did I state it was. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.”

          Not at all. I was just curious.

  32. avatar Jus Bill says:

    What with all this hoopla and the election in general, I would just LOVE to be a fly on the wall during the first NRA Board meeting with the new members in attendance. Just to see who “walks the walk.”

  33. The OC fanatics out there apparently can’t even pause a moment to listen actually to what Rob Pincus has said, and is saying, about OC.

  34. avatar John in Ohio says:

    I think that he’d fit right in in the NRA Board of Directors for the same reasons I’m no longer an NRA member. ROTFLMAO

    The Second Amendment is about tyranny, not crime. Keep on swinging and missing, NRA.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email