Aww jeez. It seems that the local constabulary in peaceful New Holstein, Wisconsin isn’t really up on state law in America’s Dairyland, dontcha know. Both open and concealed carry are okey-dokey in The Eat Cheese or Die state. In fact the only place you can’t openly carry is in your caarr. And thanks to the state’s preemption law, any municipal ordinance there may be to the contrary, as the un-named officer references, is null and void . . .

The two individuals in this video were stopped by the officer, she says, for making the locals feel “uncomfortable.” A condition which, as they inform her, isn’t really their problem. And that’s when she tries to run them out of town.

“I would like you to leave our city. You need to leave our city. … You can exercise your right. That’s fine, but you’re making people feel uncomfortable.”

Is that like The Wild West as the carrier claims? You betcha! We don’t like your kind around here, boy. Now mosey on down the trail or there’s gonna be trouble. We don’t know, but we’d guess these gentlemen declined her request to skedaddle.

As gun rights continue their march across the nation, more of these kinds of interactions are likely to occur. Here in the Lone Star State, we’ll have open carry with the new year. And as firearms-friendly a rep as Texas may have, you can bank on some jurisdictions not appreciating citizens actively asserting their rights.

But what about your town? Would you expect to be badgered for open carrying like they do in this Wisconsin burg? Is your town gun-friendly?

216 Responses to Question of the Day: Is Your Town Gun-Friendly?

  1. Phoenix. I have been OCing for about a year now and I have had exactly 1 response that was negative, and it wasn’t a cop. So I would say… yes.

    • Arizona is cool. Police here seem more interested in catching criminals rather than harassing OC’ers.

  2. My town in MA is gun friendly. It’s a red town in a blue state. My state rep is an NRA A-rated Republican. My state senator is an NRA A-rated Republican. The chief LEO issues LTCs (that what MA calls a CCW) on a shall issue basis in this may issue state. One of the best public indoor ranges in the region is located here. There is a prominent gun club here, too. Gun friendly for real.

    If I accidentally flashed and was reported, I’d receive a stern lecture from the cops but that’s all. However, if I tried to OC — which is legal in MA with an LTC — the po-po would go all batshit and give me the bum’s rush. Maybe I wouldn’t be charged with anything, but it would still be ugly.

    • Then your town isn’t gun friendly….and you should do something about it before someone gets hurt, the municipality gets a hefty lawsuit, or both.

      • I wonder if the local PotG could quietly negotiate with the Chief since he seems to be gun-friendly.

        What sorts of escalating marches, demonstrations, protests would the Chief tolerate. The Chief could beat his breasts, talk tough, and ultimately shrug his shoulders saying that:
        – Commonwealth law allows OC; and,
        – the demonstrators have a right of free speech to have their OC marches, etc.

        Once the kabuki dance has played-out, the local PotG could just carry-on with regular albeit occasional OC practice.

        Now, once there has been a successful penetration of one such town in a Blue State, the process could repeat in a second town with a gun-friendly Chief. And so the PotG go across the State, making OC de facto practice throughout the State. Then, repeat in the not-so-gun-friendly towns in-between the towns where the kabuki-dance was successfully played-out.

        What are the un-friendly Chiefs going to do? They will be fully aware that neighboring towns are practicing OC in accordance with Commonwealth law. It would be particularly cute if the first arrests in an un-friendly town have to take their prosecution to a judge in one of the friendly towns. The judge in that town is going to have a tough time throwing-the-book at someone charged with disturbing-the-peace with OCiers strolling in front of his court-house.

    • I live in southeastern MA myself, and I open carry regularly, locally, without incident. Won’t catch me doing it in Boston, though.

      • Where in SE Mass are you? I am south shore myself and can’t imagine a town where OC doesn’t involve a SWAT team response

        • Middleboro area. And I should point out that I OC an HK USP40 in a retention holster. I don’t get any more reaction than a cop might. I suspect people assume I’m some kind of officer.

    • Not only do they make me feel uncomfortable, they destroy lives every single day by kidnapping and caging peaceful people who have not harmed or threatened anyone (for example, pot smokers).

      And yes, they need to go away for good. Seriously. For example, see Threat Management Center in Detroit, a private company who is providing security way better than any police force. And serving the poor too. Look them up. We don’t need cops.

  3. Living in Montana all my life, I never have had to face this issue. Here, its much like Alaska. Firearms are a part of life, and no one calls the cops because it makes them uncomfortable. People here are comfortable with firearms. This is what needs to happen in all 50 states. It’s also why the various attacks on OCT are in error. OCT is and was correct. Getting people used to the law and firearms did the trick. Open carry was stalled for years in Texas until they came along. They got it passed and all gun owners there owe them a debt. And continuing to bash them will NOT get that debt paid off. All those who attacked them need to publicly apologize, and mean it! No, “Gee, I’m sorry BUT…….” need apply. Only that will clear this debt, and I predict that it will remain outstanding for a very long time……..

  4. I live in South Florida. Concealed means concealed.

    If the Police get a peek it could go left pretty easily, but it really depends on the cop who gets the peek. All of the local Police I know wouldn’t do anything more than ask for your permit, but I hear tales of some of the ‘other guys’ that would totally wig out because OMG! GUN!

      • You are both correct. SB 234, which, among other things, legalized accidental exposure of a concealed firearm, was passed in 2011. Yet, people were still arrested and prosecuted for open carry.

        Trust no one.

      • Printing and exposure are both legal.

        Doesn’t mean the cops aren’t going to go all cop on you.

        Like I said, I hear from my cop friends that there are still many of them out there that wig out at the sight of a gun on anyone who isn’t in uniform.

        The basic YMMV disclaimers apply.

        • “Like I said, I hear from my cop friends that there are still many of them out there that wig out at the sight of a gun on anyone who isn’t in uniform.”

          The biggest problem seems to be cops that come to the GunShine state from places like NYC.

          As for if my town is gun friendly.-

          I live in Polk County, Florida. The sheriff is Grady ‘Because they ran out of bullets’ Judd.

          Judd is happy to sign NFA paperwork for the law abiding.

        • best money ever spent in florida has got to be for the concealed permit , gotten me out of at least 4 tickets so far(nothing major,seatbelt,going a bit fast) and counting. every cop so far suddenly relaxes when the see the license and permit together.

        • ….. Except when 90% of the people effected by the changes in the law, past or present, arent black.

          Let me just frame it this way and lets see if this resonates….. You know when crazy anti-2A types get infront of a camera and say some crazy stuff? It drives gun support/sales up (I thinks sarah tipton wrote a TTAG article about that a few days ago)….. Well, we have well intended people who do the same thing and drive people away. And these two guys are those kind of people.

          And yes, public opinion does weigh heavilly on weather or not a law gets passed. While not an ultumate sungular factor it is important.

        • Readers may be interested in a paper: “GUNS AND VOTES” by: Laurent Bouton; Paola Conconi; Francisco Pino; Maurizio Zanardi (http://www.nber.org/papers/w20253). Costs $5 to download.

          They studied Senators’ voting patterns over the 6-year term-of-office. Senators would vote anti-gun for 4 years and then flip-flop during the last 2 years of their term to vote less-anti and more-pro gun when facing re-election. However, this phenomena would manifest only if their pro-gun constituents were a moderate fraction of their constituency.

          That makes sense. If pro-gun people were a strong majority the anti-gun Democrat who managed to get elected wouldn’t have any room to vote anti-gun. If pro-gun people were an insignificant minority, the Democrat wouldn’t need their votes to win over the Republican opponent. It’s only when the pro-gun constituents could make a difference that they made a difference.

          They also found that the pro-gun people were more-so one-issue-voters whereas the anti-gun constituents were interested in a whole host of progressive issues. Gun control was generally far down on the list. This observation gives the anti-gun Senator some leeway in casting a couple of pro-gun votes.

          The conclusion I reach is that it:
          – helps to convert a heretofore open-minded voter to being a gun-carrier (and then presumably a strident gun-rights advocate).
          – hurts to convert a heretofore gun-control sympathetic voter into a strident opponent of guns.

        • ….sorry the above comment was for a different thread on this article, and I cant delete it now.

  5. What they are doing is legal, but they are looking for a response. Come on, black tac vest shades, bandanna and chest carry. I open carry all the time in Wisconsin. Unwrinkled 5.11s, or nice clean Wranglers (need the belt loops), polo or button shirt, tucked in and on the hip carry. Never a problem. I guess you are not exercising you rights unless you are pissing someone off.

    • We used to have open carry of a sort here in california about five years ago. As is usual in california, some dingdongs shoved their rights in everyones face and the response was to take it away.

      Most cops I know would have responded in force to the two in the video and would have taken a more tactical and coordinated response….. The cop in the video was basically responding to a noise complaint…. Those guys were disturbing the people in the town the same way a bunch of punks playing loud obnoxious music do….. “What you’re doing isnt illegal punks/gun-idiots, but you are pissing a lot of people off. So knock it off and get out of here.” ….. Not exactly fascists or unreasonable

      • As is usual in california, some dingdongs shoved their rights in everyones face and the response was to take it away.

        Do people actually believe this nonsense?

        If that were true, how do you explain Gay Pride parades, and all of the other intentionally overly flamboyant and in-your-face demonstrations by the LGBT community, and the impact that those actions had?

        In both cases, statists in government acted according to their own whim, regardless of the Rule of Law. The outcomes were different not because of the actions of the participants, but because of the desired outcomes of the people in power.

        Most cops I know would have responded in force to the two in the video and would have taken a more tactical and coordinated response.

        Then you know some cops who need to find a new line of work.

        he cop in the video was basically responding to a noise complaint.

        Noise? What noise? How does walking down a sidewalk create noise?

        Those guys were disturbing the people in the town the same way a bunch of punks playing loud obnoxious music do…

        Utterly absurd. Let’s try that in a different context, shall we?

        Those Muslims walking down the sidewalk were disturbing the people in the town the same way a bunch of punks playing loud obnoxious music do…

        Those black people walking down the sidewalk were disturbing the people in the town the same way a bunch of punks playing loud obnoxious music do…

        That gay couple walking down the sidewalk were disturbing the people in the town the same way a bunch of punks playing loud obnoxious music do…

        Merely walking down a sidewalk disturbs no one.

        “What you’re doing isnt illegal punks/gun-idiots, but you are pissing a lot of people off. So knock it off and get out of here.” ….. Not exactly fascists or unreasonable

        If you are indicative of the people of the state of California, I better understand how it’s in the state it has become.

        • Well it is apparent you know all sir, congrats! By your reasoning these two gents rights out way the safety and security of the thousands of citizens of this community.
          These gents went as far as to ask the chief prior for approval, that alone shows that they consider their actions questionable.
          The officer was called there, fact.
          Asked for ID fact. They walk away, eluding identification attempt. Whether it be she was trying to verify that they’re old enough to posses the firearms or whatever does not matter.
          Such avoidance would lead to the perception that they’re committing an offense. Similar to that of a gent drinking a beer and being approached for his ID for age verification. He may be old enough but they have the right to check. No.harm no foul. Same as any cashier asking for ID when purchasing taboo or alcohol. Do.you cause a scene and say I have a right to do this b/c I’m cool, no.
          The sense of intitlement in the case is overwhelming and obvious their intent was to pick a fight.
          Now.lets say they’re criminals permitted to walk the streets without question b/c of their rights. So what we allow this and a shooting happens. Then it’s law enforcement fault for not doing something. With thinking like yours air no one wins.
          Good day sir I’m done with this news feed I have more important things to do than debate common sense.

        • Well it is apparent you know all sir, congrats! By your reasoning these two gents rights out way the safety and security of the thousands of citizens of this community.

          There is zero evidence that the actions of the two men in question in any way jeopardized the safety and security of the thousands of citizens of that community.

          These gents went as far as to ask the chief prior for approval, that alone shows that they consider their actions questionable.

          No, it shows that they anticipated that the local LEO would attempt to infringe upon their rights. And they were proven correct.

          The officer was called there, fact.

          Irrelevant.

          Asked for ID fact.

          Absent RAS of a crime being investigated or civil infraction being cited, they were not statutorily obligated to provide ID. Fact.

          They walk away, eluding identification attempt.

          They were within their rights to elude identification attempt. They were not being detained, and not accused of doing anything unlawful. Thus, the LEO could request, but not compel them, to provide ID.

          Whether it be she was trying to verify that they’re old enough to posses the firearms or whatever does not matter.

          Yeah, they sure do look underage… are you a moron, or just being intentionally obtuse? I assume it’s the latter, but one never knows.

          In any case, refer to US v Black, which establishes that the default status is not a person being unlawfully in possession of a firearm. As such, because of the presumption of innocence, an officer needs specific, reasonable , articulable suspicion that the two men were underage or otherwise not lawfully in possession of their firearms.

          Such avoidance would lead to the perception that they’re committing an offense.

          No, such avoidance is merely assertion of rights protected by the fourth amendment. The assertion of rights in the conduct of lawful activities does not constitute reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.

          Not producing ID when unlawfully demanded is not evidence of unlawful activity, any more than not consenting to a search when unlawfully demanded is evidence of unlawful activity.

          Similar to that of a gent drinking a beer and being approached for his ID for age verification.

          Drinking beer, especially in public, is not a natural right explicitly protected by the constitution against any and all infringement. And the RAS standard for minor in possession or public intoxication is far lower than the RAS for being illegally in possession of a firearm.

          He may be old enough but they have the right to check. No.harm no foul. Same as any cashier asking for ID when purchasing taboo or alcohol. Do.you cause a scene and say I have a right to do this b/c I’m cool, no.

          Again: drinking is not exercising a natural, civil, constitutionally protected right that shall not be infringed.

          The sense of intitlement in the case is overwhelming and obvious their intent was to pick a fight.

          The police officer approached them, not the other way around. They were minding their own business. How can they have possibly “picked a fight”?

          Now.lets say they’re criminals permitted to walk the streets without question b/c of their rights. So what we allow this and a shooting happens. Then it’s law enforcement fault for not doing something. With thinking like yours air no one wins.

          Really, you should read US v Black. It specifically addresses your concern. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status.

          Also: criminals don’t carry openly.

          Good day sir I’m done with this news feed I have more important things to do than debate common sense.

          Cheers.

        • The Black Panthers were way ahead of you buddy…. They did the same thing as these guys out here in Oakland in the sixties and seventies with the same reasoning that your sputtering. It WAS legal back then but is illegal NOW because the only people doing it were political periahs. These guys weren’t walking down a country road coming back from a hunt. They were looking for a confrontation with the police (a la The Black Panthers)…… People like this (who wave the 2A banner in our names) are making the rest of us look basically like the Black Panthers to the rest of Americans who aren’t 2A educated/friendly….. You can rant all you want, and you can even be technically and morally correct, but unfortunately your view isnt that of the public at large.

        • …proving yet again that gun control, at its heart, is about controlling/disarming black people.

          And some people are foolish/naive to think that public opinion has anything at all to do with gun control laws being passed.

        • ….. Except when 90% of the people effected by the changes in the law, past or present, arent black.

          Let me just frame it this way and lets see if this resonates….. You know when crazy anti-2A types get infront of a camera and say some crazy stuff? It drives gun support/sales up (I thinks sarah tipton wrote a TTAG article about that a few days ago)….. Well, we have well intended people who do the same thing and drive people away. And these two guys are those kind of people.

          And yes, public opinion does weigh heavilly on weather or not a law gets passed. While not a singular factor it is important.

        • ….. Except when 90% of the people effected by the changes in the law, past or present, arent black.

          You’re confusing unintended/ancillary consequences with primary intent.

          “Gun control” = “disarming black people”. It always has, and always will. Just ask Bloomberg, who admitted as much, a mere few weeks ago.

        • I’m quite certain Bloomberg would be content to take all our guns, unintended or otherwise.

  6. Blue town in a Red area in a Purple state. There was an effort a while back to ban table top FFLs but mine is still in business so I assume it failed. The sheriff is one of those who refused to issue permits to carry weapons before IA became shall issue, but you can carry in the courthouse which is county by county. Don’t open carry, I have a business to run and I don’t care to find out which clients might agree or disagree with me politically. But like most places, if someone calls 911 over your gat you can probably expect the cop to be a douche about it even if you haven’t broken any laws.

  7. Southeastern Virginia no big deal. Never had any issues with LEOs. Only had one OMG moment from a college girl, but just let it slip and kept going. Do get asked a lot of questions from people about buying their first gun.

  8. I work at a large-ish metro area but live out by the sticks. The metro area *gun friendliness* depends mostly on the po-po that you encounter. Some are dicks about it, and have barely a clue as what the local gun laws are. Some are cordial about the encounter, though a tad skittish (which I can understand).
    Out on the sticks, the situations is a bit better. Less “dickishness” for the most part, although there’s the occasional gung-ho cop.

    As for the regular folks, it depends largely if they’re transplants from blue states and have a ‘ttude.

  9. Sorry. These guys aren’t doing those of us fighting to keep our 2A rights any favors. The 80% of the population who have no strong opinion one way or another are not going to jump to our side if we make them afraid (whether they should be afraid or not is not the issue here). Fear breeds intolerance and small-mindedness, which are the enemies of our RKBA.

    • I certainly agree in some circumstances. These guys, however, were very calm and respectful; I’ve seen far worse.

    • … Don’t you have the surrender of the Sudetenland to organize? You know, “peace in our time” and all…

      • I’m not looking to compromise. I’m looking to turn the tide of public opinion which will help the country move away from the progressives who want to turn us into a nanny state. We don’t swing folks to our side by making them afraid. We do it by including them and showing them that there’s nothing to fear from someone carrying a gun. In order to do that you have to interact with them beyond walking past them with a chest rig.

        • ” In order to do that you have to interact with them beyond walking past them with a chest rig.”
          No you don’t. Just seeing armed men will show people the normalcy of it. Showing the masses works, TELLING them doesn’t. People don’t listen to words, most can barely speak them. When a select few DO listen, they get everything you said all wrong and jumbled up. Actions speak ever so much louder than words. That’s what you anti’s need to attack, and you understand this. Which is exactly why you are here now.

        • You are correct about this:
          “Fear breeds intolerance and small-mindedness, which are the enemies of our RKBA.”
          So it should follow that you believe in reducing said fear. And then you attempt to re-enforce said fear by ridiculing these ones who attempted to quash the public fear of firearms by wearing them, showing said public(NOT SAYING!) that firearms can be worn and yet cause no crime…. and might well prevent same.
          Nice attempt at generating the fear that you SAY you are trying to reduce. Awfully strange way you have of SHOWING that…..

        • At Kurt:

          But what you don’t seem to realize is that you are acting as just a big of a an “nanny” as the progressives.

          You seem to (mistakenly) be under the impression than another man living his life and hurting no one and breaking no law in the process is any of your &^%$ business.

          Nannies/Satists come in all political stripes…

    • Kurt, you will never overcome the sheeple’s fear by catering to it and hiding. Sheeple will only get over their fear by seeing normal people open-carrying. Sooner or later, the sheeple will figure out that there’s nothing to be afraid of. When that happens, it’s game over for the gungrabbers, and they know it. Which is why they will fight OC to the death.

      • It’s possible he’s trying to suggest a holstered handgun as being “normal looking enough” as opposed to a “chest rig” (his words) being somewhat overkill.

        I don’t agree with him, but I don’t read him as condeming ANY open carry, either.

    • Yeah, yeah, we get it; fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to the dark side. But you forget that the main thing that leads to fear is ignorance. Ignorance can’t be solved by hiding.

    • I am in favor of open carry. I open carry in Las Vegas/Henderson about half the time because it is VERY hot. The other half I conceal because I am either going somewhere like the Strip where the muggles are easily discomfited, or I am escorting my elderly mother and would rather not spend time talking with police officers.

      While these guys handled themselves coolly in the situation I cannot say that I approve of walking down the street with a tactical shotgun, extra rounds on the stock, and a pistol in a tactical vest. Legal, yes. Smart or neighborly, definitely not. If I encountered them on the street, even if I were carrying my own weapon, they would put me immediately in condition orange.

      I understand that they were looking for this encounter, they knew and fully expected that they would have such and encounter and their intent was undoubtedly to educate the police and use the video to educate the public. It seems a foolish exercise of their rights to me – too “in your face”. In situations like this, where the intent is to have an encounter with police in order to produce a video, it is far too easy for things to go out of control of either the open carrier or the responding police. I do not believe that is a good thing for our open carry cause in the long run.

      Open carry reasonable weapons in a reasonable manner. If police respond poorly or inappropriately, video THAT and post it, that is something that needs to be corrected and publicized. But if you are marching through quiet neighborhoods or shopping areas with heavy weapons and SWAT or military tactical clothing you are asking for a response and baiting law enforcement, the public, and perhaps even people who would otherwise be on your side to react with hostility and suspicion.

      Cut it out, please.

      • I live in Henderson and also OC a lot in summer, CC every other time. I also agree 100% with what you said, but to a lot of POG that means im a anti gunner. The thing is, I think you SHOULD be able to do it. If you choose to, you shouldnt get in any sort of trouble, I just dont think a bunch of people in tactical gear helps changing anyones minds though, and in fact is a detriment.

        So yeah, you’re free to do it, I support the freedom to do it, but dont be upset when others use their freedom to vote against our gun rights because they dont want to see/are afraid to see people in body armor/chest rigs walking down their neighborhood streets…because that’s all that is doing.

  10. I think what bothers me about confrontations like this is that these guys are not helping anyone or serving the cause of gun rights or carry normalization. In my state, we have activist OC events that are organized, polite, and most importantly, in very well-trafficked public spaces so they can engage the public. For some reason, the cops don’t harass them, probably because it’s obvious that a bunch of people with slung rifles talking with curious bystanders mean no harm. These guys, on the other hand, are scrapping for a confrontation they can post on YouTube. They’re educating no one. You might draw a cop who cares about the law, but the ones who don’t (like this one) will just go home frustrated and hardened to gun “activists” who rub their noses in pre-emption.

    In addition, did anyone notice beard guy put his hands behind his back when first approached (adjusting his shirt or belt, it looked like) and grabbed the pistol grip (or near to it) on his shotgun to stop it swinging?

    My town is friendly to guns, and I and most gun owners are friendly to the townspeople. We are not afraid to OC, but we do hesitate to provoke people just because we can. Golden Rule, you know.

    • “You might draw a cop who cares about the law, but the ones who don’t (like this one) will just go home frustrated and hardened to gun “activists” who rub their noses in pre-emption.”

      And, hopefully, will know the law just a little better.

      Sorry, but a person charged with enforcing the law has to know that law. And that person also has to understand that their personal likes and dislikes don’t mean much in terms of whether something is legal or not.

      Asking them to cover up because people are uncomfortable? Maybe. Telling them to leave town? Totally unacceptable.

      • The “leaving town” crap was way out of line. She was obviously frustrated because either she or her superior wanted the “problem” fixed, but were powerless to do anything. The better solution is to call the complainants back and say you checked out the suspicious persons and determined no laws were being broken.

        • Having lived in Wisconsin for a few years, I can attest to there being a strong authoritarian streak in many small town government. I attribute it to the Germanic heritage of the area.

    • Watching the video, I found two problems with what the guys said.

      First, they said some insulting things about the local police chief. Even if true, even if the officer privately agreed with them … not helpful nor relevant.

      Second, the camera guy held out the threat of a lawsuit. That to me advertises more than anything else that they actually are trying to pick a fight.

      But overall, I think the officer was definitely out of line.

      • First, they said some insulting things about the local police chief. Even if true, even if the officer privately agreed with them … not helpful nor relevant.

        And had Officer Respect My Authoritay! hadn’t engaged them in the first place, she would not have had any way to hear their opinion of the police chief.

        Second, the camera guy held out the threat of a lawsuit. That to me advertises more than anything else that they actually are trying to pick a fight.

        By making that statement, he was not threatening, but merely stating fact. The threat of lawsuit comes form the state statute the police officer was attempting to violate. IIRC, under the Wisconsin state preemption statute, any municipality that enforces or continues to enforce a municipal statute in violation of state preemption is subject to a lawsuit, and (daily?) fines.

        It may be that the officer could be held personally liable; I don’t remember. But the point is that the taxpayers of that municipality would be the ones footing the bill for her ignorance of state law.

      • To your first point, I agree. It wasn’t helpful to insult the chief. It’s off topic, ad hominem, and only prolongs and expands the bounds of an already unnecessary encounter. It exhibits pointless emotions and elicits the same in response.

        Notice when the two state that they have already talked to the chief, and the officer immediately snaps back that she has, too? What does that even mean? When did she talk to the chief? Not during this encounter. What did she talk to the chief about? Nothing pertaining to this encounter. It’s just argumentative tit for tat, which the OCers opened the door to. Don’t do it.

        To your second point, I’m not seeing their threat of a lawsuit as betraying any ulterior motive. They tried repeatedly to continue on their way, before playing that card. It’s their way of finally communicating to this lawbreaking officer, who’s violating their civil rights, that they know their rights and aren’t intimidated by her Jim Crow era tactic of bullying an inconvenient minority.

      • The “guys ” are private citizens. The cop whom is a representative of the public paying Her salary is not. Basicly they have a right to be assholes, she should be held to a hire standard. The issue is the bitch will likely not get in any trouble when she should be at min suspended for two weeks without pay
        Maybe she wants gun owners and armed citizens to stay ” in the closet”. Maybe she wants us to have a DONT ask don’t tell policy. Well we will NOT be descrimnate agajnst. Our rights are clearly protected via the 2 ms amendment and if people don’t like it they can Lump it.

      • Walking down a sidewalk is not the same as walking down a sidewalk with a shotgun on a single-point sling.

        • In terms of provocativeness, they are absolutely the same.

          Or, do you argue that the mere presence of a firearm is inherently provocative?

        • I am definitely saying the presence of a firearm is provocative. I am not dense — I understand how non-gun owners view openly carried guns. You can advocate for gun normalization, but you can’t pretend the carrying of long arms in an American city is normal.

        • I am definitely saying the presence of a firearm is provocative.

          What other lawful, inanimate objects are inherently provocative, merely by their presence?

          Provocation generally requires an element of intent – and certainly so, if alleged provocation is to be legally actionable.

          I am not dense — I understand how non-gun owners view openly carried guns. You can advocate for gun normalization, but you can’t pretend the carrying of long arms in an American city is normal.

          Abnormal != provocative.

          Fear of openly carried long guns is utterly irrational.

        • @Chip

          The presence of a firearm is absolutely provocative. I often find myself with an overwhelming need to ask what it is, is it reliable, how long have you had it…..

        • “Walking down a sidewalk is not the same as walking down a sidewalk with a shotgun on a single-point sling.”
          Ahh, but that is where you are wrong. In Wisconsin, legally speaking, walking down the street armed is the exact same thing as walking the street unarmed. Whether or not the cop has a personal bias against it is not relevant. Their dept forbids them to use their personal feelings to decide the issues in front of them. They seldom do so, and they don’t get punished for their continual violations of the depts’ policies, but that is the PROBLEM, not the solution. The solution is in forcing the departments to obey their own policies.

        • @Chip:
          “What other lawful, inanimate objects are inherently provocative, merely by their presence?”

          Depending on where you live, lots of things can be. For example, there are some shops in San Francisco that would likely be, um, “out of place” elsewhere. Or, depending on the place and time, certain types and configurations of motorcycles.

          But I take your point. It’s about tolerance, much as some folks here hate that word when applied to topics other than firearms.

        • Actually, it’s more about active vs passive provocation, than it is about tolerance.

          In a free society, we are under no obligation to modify our exercise of rights or lawful actions because others choose to take offense at those actions (i.e. passive provocation). Someone, somewhere, will always have their delicate sensibilities offended by something. Their state of being perpetually aggrieved is their own problem.

        • “What other lawful, inanimate objects are inherently provocative, merely by their presence?”

          I’ll bite. How about sex toys? If you walked around with a bunch of dildos and vibrators hanging off of you, would you not expect that to be provocative?

    • For some reason, the cops don’t harass them

      I’m just spitballing here, but I’m guessing that the reason that the cops don’t act like douchebags is that they know that they are being recorded by people who have access to lawyers. There are two things that cops just hate — smart phones and smart lawyers.

  11. Come on, they are looking for a response. Black TAC vest, bandana and chest carry. I never have had a problem with open carry in Wisconsin. 511s or Wranglers, polo or button shirt, tucked in and hip carry in a nice, holster (usally no polymer or kydex). I know they are legal, but who do you think is really doing more to support our rights?

    • What does the clothing worn have to do with whether or not the law was broken? NOTHING and you know it! You just sound like one cop defending another with personal opinions about “this guy deserved it”. No, they didn’t. They deserved to be treated as the law abiding citizens they were.
      Complaint or no complaint, or the status of some anonymous callers’ ‘comfort level’, these are not relevant to this cop’s job. The job is to ENFORCE THE LAW, not to act on your own personal biases. Once the cop saw that no law was being broken the obligation(which they never seem able to discharge) is to return to the complainant and inform them that no law was being broken, their complaint was investigated and found wanting, and that any more calls about this particular incident could be considered abuse of the emergency system, or even a false police report, now that they have been warned. If they would just do that one simple thing(THEIR JOB), these incidents would dwindle and vanish. But they refuse to. Geeez, Isn’t it interesting to speculate on WHY????

      • Live on the real world. Why the hell do you think that Illinois carry (biggest pro gun rally in the country) we don’t wear camouflage. I will defend what that are doing to the end. But what’s the goal here, to normalize people dressed up as Rambo or to normalize open carry? What do you want to do, support the Second Amendment effectively, or do what ever is legal, and damn the consequences.

        • Ahhh, from Illinois. That explains the attitude and bellicosity!
          “do what ever is legal, and damn the consequences.” OFC! Because if it is legal, there can be, and shouldn’t be any consequences! Only in the belief of a statist brain can there be legal consequences for legal behavior. Or are you just saying that cops should be able to do whatever they want, to whoever they want, whenever they want, and that is just the “consequences” of being alive? If that is what you believe, I want to be around when the police discover YOU, buddy!
          Assuming, ofc, that you aren’t one, which I suspect you are….

        • Rambo didn’t wear a tactical vest – he usually went shirtless. And he usually carried a knife. But whatever, right?

      • Live on the real world. Why the hell do you think that Illinois carry (biggest pro gun rally in the country) we don’t wear camouflage. I will defend what that are doing to the end. But what’s the goal here, to normalize people dressed up as Rambo or to normalize open carry? What do you want to do, support the Second Amendment effectively, or do what ever is legal, and damn the consequences. I have had my CCW spotted by Chicago cops without a problem. Why do you think that is?(and its not my skin color)

      • The first rule of self defense is don’t get noticed. Same applies to open carry. Dress like a grown up and you will attract less attention and will less likely to face harassment.

      • I do seem to recall on this very site discussion of the Trevon Martin case and those arguing that his wearing a hoodie at night certainly made him appear more “thug-ish”, intended or not. One’s mannerisms, appearance, body language, posture, like it or not, does, in fact effect if one is outwardly presented, or perceived, as threatening. I’m not saying oc is bad (or good), just, legal or not, protected by 1a, 2a, or 4a, how one dresses/acts/presents does matter in the human condition. Could I legally walk into my local bank with my hand in my coat pocket and pull down a ski mask just before entering on a summer afternoon? yes, but many reasonably might perceive me as a threat.

        • I do seem to recall on this very site discussion of the Trevon Martin case and those arguing that his wearing a hoodie at night certainly made him appear more “thug-ish”, intended or not.

          Wearing a hoodie is, to some degree, correlated to “thuggish” and/or criminal behavior. Seeing someone wearing a hoodie, at night, loitering in the rain, in a location that has been subjected to frequent recent break-ins by hoodie-wearing suspects is cause for reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.

          One’s mannerisms, appearance, body language, posture, like it or not, does, in fact effect if one is outwardly presented, or perceived, as threatening.

          Openly carrying a long gun is not in any way whatsoever correlated to criminal behavior. Seeing someone walking down a public sidewalk, openly carrying a long gun, absent anything else, is not cause for reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.

          Could I legally walk into my local bank with my hand in my coat pocket and pull down a ski mask just before entering on a summer afternoon? yes, but many reasonably might perceive me as a threat.

          Non sequitur FTW?

        • The term is hyperbole, not non sequitor. He is merely pointing out that the right to carry may be protected but human perception is outside of the legal framework.

      • “What does the clothing worn have to do with whether or not the law was broken? ”

        So if a guy dressed as a forestry worker is carrying an axe down the street, and another guy in a speedo and clown wig is carrying an axe down the street, both of which are legal, in your worldview the cops should view them precisely the same and not direct more scrutiny on one versus the other?

        Here is a thought experiment for you. You saw both of these guys I described within a few hours of each other. Then the same day you heard a news report on the radio that several tourists in that area had been attacked by a man wielding an axe. Which guy with the axe is going to come to mind first as a possible perp? Why?

        How about this. If the cops had passed the same clown wig and speedo guy and paid him no mind, and he had attacked people shortly thereafter, would you be more likely to applaud them for their lack of bias or would you question their competence and intelligence for not at least approaching the guy and trying to make a threat assessment through verbal contact before the attack happened? Be honest.

    • Come on, they are looking for a response.

      And even if we assume that to be true: they keep getting that response. The issue is not law-abiding people exercising a constitutionally protected right in a lawful manner; rather, the issue is the police continuing to respond to reports of lawful activities. When the police either stop responding to specious calls, or else moderate their response to one that includes observing, but not otherwise harassing, law-abiding citizens acting lawfully, then such people will stop getting a response.

      And you know what: I would bet that they would consider such an outcome to be a complete victory.

      • All of you just don’t get it, its not the Cops we need to change the minds of, its the general public. Dressing like Rambo is not going to change anyone’s minds. Like I said, I will defend what he is doing. However what you don’t get is the general public is going to support cops harassing open carry if people keep doing it the way he is. Hell, at first I thought he was a Cop (Chicago PD dresses like that on the west side without the beard).

        • Ahhh, so now you slip and let your real motives out. You suggest that it would have been perfectly fine to dress that way IF HE WAS A COP! Yiou hadn’t a problem with it when you thought he was the police. Only when it becomes clear that he was NOT, is when the indignation started. A dyed in the wool Statist, for sure.

        • All of you just don’t get it, its not the Cops we need to change the minds of, its the general public.

          Actually, the rights of a law-abiding person carrying a firearm in a lawful manner, doing otherwise lawful things, are far more likely to be violated by police officers than by the general public. It is absolutely the police officers who need a change in mindset, first and foremost.

          That John Q. Sheeple calls the local PD to report a law-abiding person as a MWAG is not really the problem; rather, the problem is that the local PD then goes to unlawfully detain and otherwise harass that law-abiding person. If the police started telling John Q. Sheeple, “call us back when you see something unlawful“, then John Q. Sheeple will stop calling to make false reports.

      • Go ahead and continue supporting this shit so police get it through their heads…because thats all that matters, not public opinion! Right?!

        What they did is 100% legal. I support their ability to do this 100%. Its their freedom. Its also every person who sees them’s freedrom to now actively vote for gun control because they dont want to see people in tac gear walking down their neighborhood.

        Ill repeat this again and again…Its ABSOLUTELY your freedom to do this nonsense. If you think its winning fence sitters or antis you are daft though. You want to normalize open carry? Open Carry like you normally would. If you say this is how youd normally carry, you’re a liar.

        This does NOTHING for our cause, and is in fact a detriment. But hey, do your thing, it’s your right, just dont complain when we get stomped in legislation because the neighborhood wasnt fond of guys in tac gear and long arms proving that they *CAN* do something.

        Is it right? No, but its THEIR freedom to vote that way. And youre only helping them act on that freedom.

        • “This does NOTHING for our cause, and is in fact a detriment.”

          Citation Needed.

          Every. Single. OC. Related. Story. Has. This. Claim. Made.

          Never is any actual EVIDENCE provided, of course.

          And why is it these claims are always made by folks using usernames we have never seen before and never see again?

          It’s just…odd. Curious, one might say.

          As to your (unsubstantiated) statement about this form of OC being a detriment…put up or shut up. You don’t get to make a claim like that without proof…leastwise without someone calling you on it.

          So, where’s the study? Where’s the data that shows “fence sitters” are jumping off the fence and onto the anti side because of activist OC-ers?

          Oh…here’s a clue…there IS NOT ONE. The ONLY people with pissed panties over OC of this or any other kind are ALREADY ANTI.

          Or, if you have DATA that shows that statement to be incorrect, show it. And I don’t mean anecdotal horse feces, either; actual, bona fide, reproducible, peer reviewed methodology showing a gross trend in gun rights attitudes toward the anti’s correlated with activist OC behaviors.

        • “Oh…here’s a clue…there IS NOT ONE. The ONLY people with pissed panties over OC of this or any other kind are ALREADY ANTI.”

          You are PROBABLY correct, but NOT NECESSARILY correct.

          It stands to reason that the Antis are the ones who are vocally showing evidence of boxers-in-a-bunch. That is NOT evidence of the OC having been COUNTER-productive. If the Anti’s were not pearl-clutching it would be evidence of having already won.

          The Anti’s antics can actually help us. If most people respond to the OCer and the Anti by concluding the Anti is the more irrational, that’s a winner.

          We don’t really have evidence of the reaction of the average Jack/Jill. While conducting OC operations we can’t really expect to have evidence. It will probably be a long time before the pollsters give us data; and, the early data will not be particularly reliable. The average Jack/Jill will more-than-likely be somewhat conflicted. It will likely take some time before s/he sorts out her/his sentiments; and, that’s fine.

          What we all ought to be thinking about is the probable reaction to various sorts of optics.

          What we do know is that Americans treasure free speech and assembly. Optics that are clearly a protest/demonstration are well tolerated no matter how the observer feels about the issue. This is a good place to start. However we can make it appear that we are carrying as a GROUP political protest makes whatever it is that we are doing OK. So, imagine 2 optics. A gang of Chipotle-Ninjas (the Press characterization, not the actuality on the ground) with/with-out someone handing out pamphlets and carrying signs. With pamphlets and signs it’s political; without, it’s showing-off or scary.

          Man in camo OCing; Man in camo OCing with his young son in camp just like daddy. One is scary or showing off; the other is normalized by the child.

          Our ideal tactics ought to be – in each precinct – to move from the political-demonstration form of OC toward the normalized form of OC in steps that acclimatize the open-minded viewer gradually. OC in ways that create conflicting optics (guns + political-protest; guns + children) and gradually withdraw the conflicting optics (just guns-as-normal).

          Really bad optics is for lone individuals to go for a stroll past a school OC a long-gun before any grooming of the political battlefield has been done.

          We need to be flamboyant without striving to be scary. The flamboyance actually serves our cause just as it served most other causes in other movements historically.

          Making out to be scary is not obviously productive. Just imagine how one might do that. Suppose bearded men trimmed their beards in the manner of Muslem men. OK, so do we want a single young male OCing with a beard looking like the Chattanooga shooter? Do we want a single young male OCing with the facial expression of the Aurora shooter? Get the picture? Then, let’s all try to do the OC movement a favor and move AWAY from such optics.

        • @JR_in_NC: “Citation Needed”

          Here’s one. It was precisely this type of confrontational open carry (in Starbucks and elsewhere) that got it outlawed here in California by Jerry Brown, even though the law was UNLOADED OPEN CARRY – there wasn’t even any ammo in the firearms.

  12. nope. we’ve got full ‘tard maig city council.
    a .22 semi auto rifle cannot have a thumbhole stock in this town. just north of chicago.

    • Yep.

      And long gun open carry in CA went swiftly away, gleefully voted on by Dems, in response to the panic generated by the MSM, when young militant nitwit OC’er like these guys thought that strutting around at the beach, scaring tourists and mommys pushing strollers, with their ARs manfully held at port arms or low ready, would somehow be perceived as a useful protest against the recent law banning handgun OC.

      These boobs are just Wisconsins versions of KKKory the OCTard.

      The young lady cop needs more ride alongs by her SGT or training officer, too.

  13. San Francisco, least gun friendly city ever. At least they are too dumb to actually ban hollowpoints.

    • Actually, the sale of hollow point ammunition is banned in SF. Fortunately the possession isn’t (yet).

  14. “It’s my problem, so it’s your problem.”
    “I would like you to leave our city.”
    “I AM TALKING TO YOU. DO NOT WALK AWAY FROM ME!”

    Yes, these gentlemen are indeed doing good work, exposing such improper (and illegal) actions and behaviors by police officers such as the one in this video. It wasn’t just second amendment-protected rights that this woman attempted to stomp all over.

  15. Time was I would have quickly said these guys were in the ‘Not Helping’ camp. Now, not so much. Things have gone too far when a uniformed officer approaches with some manufactured, Oprah-fied misdeed known broadly as creating discomfort. Seriously? What’s her next move? ask these guys how to spell ‘heinous’? To be so profoundly ignorant of the Law you are trusted to enforce is an outright disgrace, no to mention the overly emotional tone and body language. Even in the age where everything is e-records they ought to be able to afford a file cabinet or 2 to keep their Title 9 types busy and away from the population. The Law isn’t what some anxious woman says on whatever given day or place, it’s actually written down and need apply equally to ALL.

    • You should go post this to Kurt. He is still stuck in the mindset that the cop is always right no matter what, and when they are wrong everybody ELSE needs to see rule one…..

      • Sorry, where did I say anything remotely resembling that I thought the cop was in the right? My point was, right or wrong, legal or not, these guys aren’t helping win the hearts and minds of the fence-sitters.

  16. MN here, Twin Cities outer suburb. Thoroughly progressive mayor, but I don’t actually know his stance on guns because we have state-level preemption. In general I see fewer “no guns” signs than I used to, except at hospitals – I’m not sure there are any around that DON’T display those.

    Open carry is legal (with a permit) but very rare; I’ve only ever noticed one person do it. I casually conceal (untucked shirt) when I don’t particularly care if someone notices. Someone who’s looking could probably see it and anyone who doesn’t want to see it probably won’t. When I’m going into a posted no-guns place (I make a lot of medical visits with one of my kids) I’m more careful about it. No force of law here – concealed is concealed – but I’d rather not be unwelcome at my kids’ doctor’s office.

  17. I would politely asked how uncomfortable are you when a criminal approaches and want to hurt you? And would relay that I practice lawful self protection, the same as you.

  18. Hmmm… I remember hearing a while back about a Dad and his son going hiking or something for the son’s eaglescouts stuff in Temple Texas. The dad ended up getting arrested by the local police(he was carrying his AR15), and I never heard anything following up the story.

    You guys know how it turned out, or have a link?

  19. I don’t know how gun friendly Austin is. When Open Carry becomes legal on January 1st, I will be one of the first people to find out. Bodycam much?

    • Sheriff Avocado already hates you. When you OC he will hate you more. That, by itself, is a powerful reason to OC in Austin.

    • While I don’t often seek them out, I do enjoy watching open carry interactions with LEOs. Really any recorded interaction with law enforcement that gets into the spectrum from mere interactions to being detained, Terry stops, etc. are of interest. One does not have to be poking the bear with open carry to receive undue LEO attention.

      I’m looking forward to your open carry video chronicles, Robert.

      I carry concealed every time I leave the house. Yet, I am doing nothing to advance 2A rights. I’m doing nothing to normalize the possession of firearms in public — BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS I’M CARRYING.

      Oregon allows open carry with a concealed handgun license, but I’m pretty confident I’d get seriously hassled by the LEOs in this Portland suburb. Perhaps when I retire, when I have time to get arrested, I’ll give it a try.

    • “When Open Carry becomes legal on January 1st, I will be one of the first people to find out. Bodycam much?”

      Get the app that streams the video to a far away server. The cops could ‘accidentally’ damage your iPhone…

  20. When I lived in Colorado, Denver & the ski-towns were places I avoided like the plague. Denver itself banned OC, but I guess state preemption doesn’t matter to those who run the Dirty D.
    Alamosa is a decent OC-friendly town, but you’d better not get caught speeding within city limits! And I thought the Springs was decent, until the hoplophobic left-coast/New England transplants, illegals, and tweakers ruined it for me.

    But where I now live in N. Alabama, it’s quite common to see folks OC’ing nearly everywhere. Businesses around here know full well how many customers they’d lose by putting up “No Guns Allowed” signs. The cops are used to lawful folk being openly armed. The local community college doesn’t freak out when a student leaves their truck in the parking-lot with a rifle/shotgun locked in the cab.
    And a lot of younger guys I’ve met here don’t celebrate turning 21 with alcohol (it’s a dry county, anyhow), instead they celebrate by applying for their carry permit & buying a pistol.

    • Your real initials wouldn’t be B.J. would they? A friend of mine used to live in Alamosa. Its a small town so I’m wondering if you might be him…

      • Sorry, those aren’t my initials. But you’re right about Alamosa being a small town, I really enjoyed living there because of that. Often, I wish I had stayed

        Having the Rio Grande right outside my back door was pretty cool too. 🙂

        • Oh… too bad. I’ll get in touch with him someday(i hope). He didn’t used to be much into computers, but he lives for guns. I never did live in Alamosa, but being a retired truck driver I went through many towns. Alamosa seemed as good as the small town I now live in in Montana. Thats what BJ said too, that if he couldn’t stay there, this was a good second…

    • Colorado Springs has vastly improved. I believe the $30K attitude adjustment someone adminstered was highly salutary.

  21. I live in a very conservative suburb of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I’ve OCed a handful of times and never had anyone say anything to me. On the occasions when I do open-carry, I make sure to dress in professional attire, and I usually do it when I have my kids with me. If the point of open-carrying is to normalize gun ownership, then I feel I can do the most good if I present an image of a respectable, trustworthy father and neighbor.

    • I agree with you on appearances. I can OC in Wisconsin and not get a second look, not from citizens or from LE. I’m usually dressed in business casual with a firearm neatly holstered, simply going about my business.
      If you look professional, people assume you are. If you look like you are about to shoot up a school, people will assume that too.
      I’m not suggesting people can’t dress as they please or that people’s assumptions based on appearance are correct, merely that you can only control part of the equation and you’ll have to deal with the results of your choices.

  22. My state is shall issue for concealed carry permits. If you don’t have a concealed carry permit, there is a handgun transfer permit that amounts to a universal background check. However, it’s not too bad. The permit is shall issue, cheap and good for three years, It’s not required for transfers within your immediate family, loaning a gun as long as the two of you stay within sight of each other, and rentals at gun ranges as long as you remain at the range. Gun clubs like to use the concealed carry permit or the transfer permit as a background check on members. Ranges usually won’t rent you a gun unless you have a permit. Private sellers are advised to require one of the permits even when selling a long gun and to make a copy of it for their records.

    Where I live, there’s the city and the county. Violent crime is a violation of state laws, not municipal ordinances, and is handled by the county prosecutor. That office has a long history, going back through many incumbents, of treating self defense fairly. In several cases, the prosecutor has gone out of his way to sympathize publicly with the defender and state that his actions were justified in the face of a deadly threat to his life.

    In contrast, the city has a fairly strong anti-gun history. There is city handgun registration. Concealed carry is illegal and open carry requires a city permit. Much to the city’s annoyance, state law exempts holders of state concealed carry permits from city ordinances. Things are slowly improving. By now, the police have figured out state law and city ordinances. They will check you out in response to a 911 call but, if you are polite, they will be, too. As long as your permit is in order, you won’t have any trouble. The current (female) mayor has a concealed carry permit and has argued in favor of repealing the registration ordinance.

  23. These are some points/suggestions that I would make after reviewing the video (in no particular order).

    1. Just because you can dress all ready for battle doesn’t mean you should if you are indeed trying to “educate” the public.
    2. When quoting the preemption statutes, why not have a prepared handout to give to the officer to educate them.
    3. At least try to be a little sympathetic to the officer’s position. “I’m sorry that someone has an irrational fear of someone walking down the street with a firearm. We are doing this to educate the public that there is no reason to fear.”
    4. Regarding being chased out of town. “Officer, I live and work in this town. I have the right to move about in the community that I live in without being harassed by someone that has an irrational fear of firearms.”

    • I agree with the suggestion to have a prepared handout. Put the relevant statutes on a business card, and have it at the ready.

      Otherwise:

      1. They’re not dressed for battle, or anything even remotely resembling battle
      3. I have no sympathy for the officer. She was out of line, statutorily and constitutionally. It is her responsibility – paid for at taxpayer expense – to know and understand the laws she is sworn to uphold.
      4. They might not even live in that town. If they are acting lawfully, their place of residence should be utterly irrelevant.

    • Kevin, those are good suggestions. A gentleman (or lady) doesn’t back down from what is right, but having sympathy and empathy is not the same as backing down. It is intelligence, plain and simple.

      • There’s a lot of people here who only care about making a point and sticking it to the man (woman?), not actually educating or doing anything meaningful for gun rights.

        They are the first to call anyone who disagrees with this tactic a statist. Whatever though, I’ll still fight for their right to do this, just wish people would understand this isnt making the fence sitters go “Oh hey, this is normal, im going to go vote for their rights to do this!” and is instead making them go “OH NOES DO YOU SEE WHAT GUN RIGHTS ALLOWS!?”

        • Why should their motivations be of concern to anyone but themselves? Liberty includes acting lawfully for your own purposes, free from interference from anyone else.

          And, if someone calls in the authority of the state (i.e. a police officer) in order to enforce their own sense of propriety (or supports those who do) upon an otherwise free person’s lawful actions – especially where exercise of natural rights is concerned – then that is, in fact, statist.

          Disagree with their actions all you want, but in the end, leave them alone to live their own lives as they see fit.

        • You seemed to missed what I said completely.

          I flat out said its their right to do this, and ill fight for their right to do this.

          IF their motivation is to normalize OC though, which is what I figured it was, it doesnt do a good job of it to the fence sitters.

          IF thats not their motivation, then my post doesnt really apply.

          Unfortunately “Fair” doesnt mean shit for our rights. Its unfair we have to be careful what we do (if we care about moving people to our side, if you dont, then do whatever the F you want) but I honest to God want normalize OC. Id hope other POG do too, hence my post.

      • Drav, that’s what I’ve been saying, too, but I’m getting the same BS. I don’t support rubbing the enemy’s face in their caca, so I’m a pinko traitor statist. Crying about “unfair” is for toddlers. Fair is just another word for carnival.

  24. I can walk around Onalaska WI without issue. I could face some harassment La Crosse City.

  25. I’ve recently had my first encounter with a law enforcement officer after carrying both concealed and open for the past ten years.

    Two months ago I had dashed into the local Conoco gas station to grab a cold two liter while we waited for Hideaway to bake an Around The World. While crossing the store from the cold beverages to the rack of drinks in the back corner one of Norman’s finest smiled and asked what I was carrying under the hem of my shirt. I told him it was a Sig 229 which resulted in ten minutes of standing there debating the merits of both the Sig, the Beretta 92 and the 1911, as well as, holsters and belts.

    A great conversation and I still made it to Hideaway before the pizza came out of the oven. I love Oklahoma.

  26. Since the concept of open carry hasn’t arrive in Illinois yet, I can only speculate on how the local po-leece would react to someone openly carrying a long gun if it were somehow legalized.

    But for those of you who like to use guns as props in political theatre, rather than as tools, let me spell it out for you: Some people, including liberty-loving gun owners, will not be comfortable with the idea. Because we all know this could happen:
    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/23/recruiting-center-shot-fired.html

    A pistol in a holster is no threat to anyone, as long as it’s in the holster. That’s easy enough to see. But if I see you carrying a long gun, I have no idea if you’re a former Navy SEAL or some jaggoff who just bought his first gun yesterday and never heard of the Four Rules. As far as I know, you could be nothing more than a next negligent discharge waiting to happen. I would steer clear of you.

    Honestly, the last thing I want to see is the “normalization” of openly carrying long guns in public.

    • Honestly, the last thing I want to see is the “normalization” of openly carrying long guns in public.

      Why?

      Are you okay with the “normalization” of openly carried baseball bats and hammers?

    • Since the movie theater shooter used a handgun, maybe we should ban handgun OC, too.

      How do you know a rifle or shotgun toter isn’t a ND waiting to happen? You don’t, but the same could be said for handgun carriers. That’s not a sound argument against long gun OC. Neither being a SEAL or a jaggoff is a crime.

      How do you know a long gun carrier is a law abiding citizen? He’s not shooting anyone.

        • “How do you know a vehicle isn’t a DUI or a vehicular manslaughter waiting to happen?”

          I don’t, Chip. Which is why I wear my seatbelt and try to avoid those times and places where DUIs are most likely. My community has more than its share of DUIs and unlicensed (illegal immigrant) drivers, I have close friends who have lost family members to drunk drivers, and I know the threat is real.

          As for baseball bats and hammers, I try to stay out of their effective range. Again, they would only concern me if they were being carried as a political stunt, rather than for their intended purpose.

        • As for baseball bats and hammers, I try to stay out of their effective range.

          What is the “effective range” of a slung long gun?

          Again, they would only concern me if they were being carried as a political stunt, rather than for their intended purpose.

          One, how do you know the motivation of the person wielding any inanimate object? Two, how many people are killed each year by baseball bats and hammers, as opposed to being killed by long guns?

  27. No data/instances to reference in my area in PA, but guessing the local Cops would have a similar response (except not as whiny). They know the law. If they ‘asked’ you to not do that and you blew them off, they’d find a way to break your balls some day for sure… Going 60 in a 55? – busted. Inspection tag a day out of date? -busted. Leave a bar with a drink in ya? – sobriety tested. Smart mouth them at any time during one of those stops? – busted. I live in a small town. Our cops are relatively cool. But they’re still Cops, and I’m guessing they don’t want to deal with a proliferation of OC and would probably stomp on your d*@k if you laid it out on the table for them. In other words, I’m not the one with enough sack to be the first one to waltz out there and find out. Risk vs Reward. Nothing to gain for me. Sorry.

  28. I live in N. Virginia about 10 miles from the District of Columbia and Maryland. Politically, this area of the state is very lib/progressive. Although open carry is legal in Virginia, I’ve only ever seen two men (not cops) doing it in N. VA since I moved here in 1996 – one guy (with his family) who had a Glock OWB on his hip at an ice cream shop, and another guy (with his son) with a 1911 IWB but showing in a local grocery store. Nobody was freaking out that I could see, but they may have thought the guys were off-duty cops, or just didn’t want to create a scene. My choice is to conceal carry all the time, because I don’t want to be on the receiving end of a “man with gun” harrassment call originated by some local anti-gun militant who is offended by just be seeing one. I’ve no stats to prove it, but I believe that most POTG that carry go concealed in this part of the state.

    • If you want to OC, try it in a place like a restaurant. If you’re sitting down having dinner and enjoying a beer (legal in VA while open carrying, but not concealed carrying), you may find nobody notices or cares. I don’t like to OC normally, but I see them occasionally (they always seem to be 1911s) around the commonwealth.

    • Enjoy Virginia while you can. One in nine Virginians are now foreign born, and they have no concept of 2A and RKBA. You live in the northernmost suburb of El Salvador. MS-13 will polish off the RKBA in a few years. Game over, man. Game over.

      • We better just start dealing with it, Ralph! Just deal with it, because we need you and I’m sick of your bullshit. Right, Newt?

      • MS-13 will be a big asset for gun rigjts. When they start shooting up the place everyone will want to get a gun.

  29. Bay area, CA. Local and state .gov is very much gun unfriendly.

    However, some of the cops are less assholish about it. I’ve actually had sensible gun talks with Berkley, yes that Berkley, cops. And my own city cop let me walk on a non ccw bust.

    Little glimmers of hope. I’ve seen NRA stickers on vehicles in staff parking lots at local schools.

    There are 6-8 million POTG in this state.

  30. I still have to fill out a form and pay a 20$ embezzlement fee and pay another 70$ for another background check and wait 3 months for every pistol I want to buy. After that I only have 30 days to buy or I have to do it all again. Then there is another 15$ for yet another background check. I still wouldn’t be able to carry it and can’t use hollowpoints. Absolutely hate the hell out of New Jersey.

  31. If you are dressed in casual business attire – Shirt with a collar, long pants (not cargo), socks and shoes and acting like you belong there, almost everyone will ignore you. The same clothing and attitude will relax any cops you encounter. If encounted be polite but firrm. Help them know the law and folow it. Clothes and attitude DO make the man. No camo, never. Make the right choices and have a good day.

    • f you are dressed in casual business attire – Shirt with a collar, long pants (not cargo), socks and shoes

      I don’t dress like that for a funeral. Women don’t dress like that. Caitlyn Jenner doesn’t dress like that. What you’re saying (maybe without knowing it) is “dress like me.” Well, I don’t want to dress like you, and you can take your dress code and shove it.

      • We all have a right to bear arms and to dress however we like. You may not like BigBoy’s style, but if you want to have a positive effect on people’s perceptions of gun owners, the truth is you’ll do more good dressed like Vince Lombardi than like Bill Belichick. I prefer jeans and a t-shirt myself, but when I OC, I make the effort to communicate with my clothes that I’m one of those good guys with guns that the antis say don’t exist.

        • …but when I OC, I make the effort to communicate with my clothes that I’m one of those good guys with guns that the antis say don’t exist.

          The very fact that you are openly carrying a firearm inherently communicates that you are a good guy with a gun.

        • “The very fact that you are openly carrying a firearm inherently communicates that you are a good guy with a gun.”

          Thanks, Chip. To guys like you and me it does, but when I OC, I’m not doing it as a “what’s up, brother” to my fellow gun guys. I’m doing it to win over the undecided. Since I can’t just load the entire neighborhood onto a bus and take them to an Appleseed, wearing nice clothes along with my M&P might nudge them an inch or so in our direction. Carry on!

        • “The very fact that you are openly carrying a firearm inherently communicates that you are a good guy with a gun.”

          Sure, Chip. In your mind. In the vast urban centers of the US, no one has ever seen a gun carried by a “good guy,” unless he was wearing a uniform and a badge. Their only reference point is the sensationalized national news, and they remember people like Adam Lanza and James Eagan Holmes, who openly carried long guns into gun-free zones and committed mass murder.

          Open carry doesn’t necessarily “communicate” what you think it should.

        • Sure, Chip. In your mind.

          No, not in my mind; in statistically documented fact.

          In the vast urban centers of the US, no one has ever seen a gun carried by a “good guy…”

          They have also never seen an openly carried gun carried by a bad guy, because bad guys don’t open carry.

          and they remember people like Adam Lanza and James Eagan Holmes, who openly carried long guns into gun-free zones and committed mass murder…

          Uh, no, they didn’t. They drove to the site of their crimes with their long guns concealed in their cars, and then took their long guns out of concealment when they committed their crimes. To call what they did “open carry” is an abuse of language.

          Open carry doesn’t necessarily “communicate” what you think it should.

          Yes, it does. Criminals don’t open carry. That some people misconstrue that communication because of their irrational fear does not change facts.

        • Chip, you have all of the facts on your side. We POTG, generally, have all the facts on our side.

          But we’re talking about communication here. Communication generally means conveying your message in such a way that the recipient understands it. Tote your long gun down the street in my town, and it will be misunderstood. It will be a communication failure, and the facts won’t matter.

      • Not so much “Dress like me”, but “Don’t dress like you’re looking for or expecting combat.”

        Tactical equipment and clothing/gear in a place where such should not in the usual order of things be necessary or required is very likely to get you unwanted attention. The small and under-armed policewoman in this situation may have exceeded her legal authority in attempting to get these people to leave her jurisdiction, but I cannot fault her for trying.

        I am bigger than the guy with the shotgun and I have to say that if I were the cop who got that call to investigate what they hell he was up to walking down a quiet street with a slung shotgun, a tactical vest and a pistol I would have unshipped my M-4 or at a minimum my bean-bag shotgun before I approached them and see if suddenly THEY felt uncomfortable about some open carry. All perfectly legal as long as I didn’t muzzle them or otherwise over-step my legal authority.

        If you are grandstanding just to get your face on YouTube, you don’t get my sympathy if things go south. If you want to normalize guns in public, carry guns that make sense in public. Just because you might be able to “legally” open carry a Bushmaster into a packed movie theater doesn’t mean the people won’t panic and un-ass the theater or that you won’t have a conversation with local law-enforcement when you get outside. Legality isn’t the issue so much as just plain common sense.

        At one point not long ago I owned five different hammers, all legal. It doesn’t mean I pulled out the framing hammer when I had a tack to drive or carried the two-pound sledge in the loop on my tool pouch when I was doing finish work.

        Frightening the muggles with scary and inappropriate weapons openly carried may make a point, but it does NOT make any friends.

        • The small and under-armed policewoman in this situation may have exceeded her legal authority in attempting to get these people to leave her jurisdiction, but I cannot fault her for trying.

          Seriously? You can’t fault her for trying to abuse her authority to run out of town two law-abiding people who were doing nothing wrong?

          I am bigger than the guy with the shotgun and I have to say hat if I were the cop who got that call to investigate what they hell he was up to walking down a quiet street with a slung shotgun, a tactical vest and a pistol I would have unshipped my M-4 or at a minimum my bean-bag shotgun before I approached them and see if suddenly THEY felt uncomfortable about some open carry. All perfectly legal as long as I didn’t muzzle them or otherwise over-step my legal authority.

          So, you would have abused your authority as a police officer to menace two law-abiding people who were doing nothing wrong, by carrying your rifle in a ready-to-use position as you approached them?

          The reason that POTG can’t have nice things is because we have too many freaking Statists in our ranks, who are more than happy to use the power of the State to enforce their own vision regarding the acceptable exercise of rights.

        • “…we have too many freaking Statists in our ranks, who are more than happy to use the power of the State to enforce their own vision… ” -chip bennett
          Boy, isn’t that just too true for comfort???
          “Your worst and most dangerous enemy is the person that injures you under the pretensions of friendship.”
          -NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections

          There sure seems to be a lot of them on this site. I guess it just draws those who always seem to say the same thing. “I believe in your rights BUT……”. But anyway, it’s why I just lurk most of the time. Not enough hours left on this planet to waste very many of them talking to an enemy within…

    • Rather than following BigBoy’s strict dress code, maybe just wear some pants that actually fit, a belt that keeps them waist high, a shirt without a hood, and save the camo for your next hunting trip?

  32. Here in DE I OC all the time. Our state constitution has the better than 2A guarantee but that doesn’t mean all the police are used to it. People have been organized and OC’ing here for several years. I haven’t had any encounters of note except the guy at the entrance to Cabelas’s asking if I’m going to be testing holsters, grips etc and if so then I have to get it checked otherwise no-touchy no problem.

    DE State Constitution, Article I section 20 – “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

  33. I’d say my town is gun friendly. The transmission on my Ford Explore gave up the ghost about four years ago and left me stranded in the middle of an intersection at a traffic light. The responding officer and I sat in his car for about half an hour chatting about my choice of personal carry weapon, his choice of off-duty weapon, and the handgun choices of our wives and daughters. Seeing someone open carrying at the gas pump, as happened to me not long ago, is likely to result in a nice long friendly chat over who made his holster and his choice of handgun. Glocks seem to be the most common but one sees all sorts of “oddball” guns being carried here; my choice at the moment is a CZ-75 P01 and I’ve seen people carrying everything from Ruger SP101 revolvers to Makarov pistols. I even saw one guy recently who was carrying a Nagant M1895.

    One of the more humorous LEO comments was one the sheriff made to a newspaper reporter who was covering the arrest of a man wanted for custodial kidnapping of his grandchildren. In the course of the arrest, the cops confiscated 20 firearms from the guy’s house. The Springfield newspaper reporter asked the sheriff about the “large arsenal.” The sheriff’s reply was, “I wouldn’t call only twenty guns an arsenal; that’s about normal for what you’d find in most any farmhouse around here.”

  34. I don’t care what others here might say. Those guys are good to go.

    The girly cop was way out classed.

  35. I have a friend who treats every stoplight as a drag tree and puts peddle-to-the-metal whenever the light turns green. His car was totaled after he was hit by a truck that ran the red light; he was in the hospital for weeks and followed that by months of therapy.

    It didn’t matter that waiting just a second at the light would have saved him from the (now) years of pain because of the accident; the law said he could go as soon as the light turned green. He was in the right and the guy driving the big rig was in the wrong.

    He decided that being “right” was more important than being safe.

    Or, as it relates to OC-idiots and the law: just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

    Had these 2 chuckleheads been walking down the street wearing polos and khakis and a pistol in a conservative leather holster, the Officer would have looked foolish to everyone.

    Instead, you have some guy rolling down the street with a ratty beard, do rag, jeans and t-shirt sporting a black tactiCOOL vest and his friend (who I feel comfortable in assuming is equally as poorly dressed) looking closer to criminals than upstanding citizens. Most people don’t know the law, they don’t care to know the law, all they know is some weirdos are walking around wearing things that are out of place, and carrying guns.

    The media will take any video it can and spin it however they can to support the anti-2A movement; this kind of behavior from the fanatical OC crowed doesn’t help. Sure, it is your right to look like you are the support team for Fat Tony and friends… but that isn’t going to win any converts to the cause.

    And we need converts to ensure that “shall not be infringed” doesn’t get redefined in the SCOTUS a la what happened in King v Burwell where the court decided that they weren’t going to use the traditional definition of the word “state” and substitute their own.

    It’s your right to OC, but it doesn’t mean you have to do it in an abnormal way.

    • The problem with your rather verbose post is that neither you, nor anyone else can legally define “abnormal way”. The whole concept is stupid. What is normal to one person is abnormal to others. LAWS must be written down, thus the whole concept of some abstract concept of “abnormal” is faulty. The clothing worn and the ‘look’ and/or the ‘feeling’ you perceive from these men is legally irrelevant. You should research the differences between feelings and facts, as well as the legal difference between “reasonable suspicions” and “probable cause”! So should most of the police. It would do both them, and you, a world of good. OFC, you would have to give up your illogical biases and prejudices, but that too would do you a world of good.

      • The problem with YOUR post is, he’s NOT proposing a law, he’s strongly suggesting that the OCer use some judgment in how he presents himself. That’s a very different animal, and I think most people can make a good judgment call that black molle is not normal.

        Why on earth some individuals insist on reacting as if the post was about a law, rather than a suggestion on how one might effectively comport themselves whilst engaging in activism, is beyond me.

        Certainly if he were proposing a law, it’d be vague and also a blatant violation of 2A.

      • You do understand the difference between suggesting that something should be illegal and that something should be considered per the desired result (normalizing OC) right? They are two distinctly difference things, yet throughout this post you’ve failed to grasp that in a large majority of your posts.

      • Watch, and be ignorant no more:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGslzXxDhEU

        Yes, you can walk around in a tacticool vest carrying whatever you are legally allowed to carry… but you have to ask yourself: “What message am I sending with the way I carry?”

        There is a distinct difference in public perception from the guy sporting a tactical vest walking aimlessly around town versus the guy wearing the exact same type of clothing as everyone else and accessorizing with a firearm; one (the guy with the vest) is out of place and trying to get attention from them self.

        This type of attitude, the “I can carry whatever I want, however I want, because the law says I can” hurts the normalization of carrying of firearms in the public eye because many of these type of people aren’t carrying in a way that is consistent with the rest of society.

        So, carry what you want, but remember: when you do, you are representing everyone else who supports OC… and when you roll around town, dressed like you are headed to a firefight in tacticool gear, you aren’t helping the cause; if youtube is any indication, you are just looking to get attention.

        Remember the too grinning fools in Texas who OC into a Chipotle carrying an AR and Mosin (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/chipotle-guns-open-carry-texas)? Do you think the people whose only interaction with OC is a photo of a poorly kempt obese man and his idiot-grinning friend carrying rifles in the middle of a restaurant are going to be motivated to join the OC cause?

        Remember: those on the fence aren’t going to know, nor really care about the ins-and-outs of Texas law, they are only going to see Laurel and Hardy and think, “I don’t want to associate with those weirdoes”. They are winning the battle but losing the war… because optics matter…

        and too many rabid OC fanatics forget this.

        • FYI, I dont even own any such tactical gear. I think its stupid. Unless, ofc, you happen to be invading a foreign country, and fully expect them to be a little unhappy with the fact that you are killing their families and destroying their country. I don’t behave that way, so I see no reason to dress for a war that I refuse to participate in. All of what you said is just your incorrect assumptions. IF I planned to destroy a small village, such gear might make some sense, but why in the world would I ever dress for a battle that I wont be in?
          The basic problem here is you fail to understand freedom and liberty. I disagree with the tacticool gear crowd in all ways(except the single exception above), but I must still defend their rights to act that way, whether I agree with them or not. That is what freedom IS. Defending another’s right to differ from me. If you destroy all views that differ from yours, you have created a hivemind, NOT liberty!
          “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -Voltaire
          Have you heard that before? In not, pay attention, its important. If you have, but simply dismissed it, you are badly in error. I suggest you learn it, know it, and live it.
          Tactical gear shouldn’t even be allowed for a police officer, like it should be for a citizen. The cop has sworn to protect and serve the public, and that oath is incompatible with wearing war material on duty. A citizen has not, and it is not his JOB. That is what makes the difference. The officer has VOLUNTARILY given up some of his liberties, in return for some other consideration that he values(like in the US today, a cushy job with a big salary).
          Do you feel a trifle less ignorant now? Or is it easier to just ignore all reason and continue to say the same things over and over, ad nauseum?

        • If the Moms want to dress-up in tacti-cool and OC for the purpose of scaring-up opposition to OC then I’ll defend to the dress their right to make a fashion statement in support of their cause.

          If a run-rights “advocate” wants to so dress-up for the purpose of getting the Mom’s lathered-up and provide a video for their announcement denouncing OC then I will criticize such an advocate for being counter-productive.

          While I have 3 NFA tax stamps I will NOT BE SILENCED! I think that we all need to strive to be productive in promoting gun-rights. If someone is doing something that I THINK – and I have a God-given 1A-guaranteed RIGHT to think – is apt to be counter-productive to the cause then I’ll speak my piece.

          I don’t contest any such “advocate” their 2A right to carry nor their 1A right to dress as they see fit. I just put such advocates in the same class as the Antis.

        • And I will defend your right to your opinions the same as the gents in the video. I may not agree with either one of you, but I will defend your right to speak as you please, so long as you break no laws; carry as you please, so long as you break no laws; and practice whatever religion you please, JUST SO LONG AS YOU BREAK NO LAWS! These men did NOT, so I will defend them. Full stop!
          When they brandish their weapons at people, when the religion requires human sacrifice(satanism) or suicide(the Jones cult) or trespass(Jehovah Witnesses??? :-), when one speaks falsely with the intent to cause harm to another(slander or libel). THAT is where your freedom ends. Thomas Jefferson put it very nicely: Your freedom ends where my nose begins. IOWs everyone is free to do as they please so long as that freedom does not injure another, physically or financially. Whether or not you, or anybody else like their clothing or hairdos is supremely irrelevant. Or at least, it should be, as it should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells left to rub together. But this page seems to be infected with a great many who do not, not that I am accusing you of being one such.
          But geez, read the page! Note how many on here are actually supportive of the police breaking laws and violating their own policies and codes of ethics, for similarly stupid reasons. Seems they believe freedom means the right to destroy anything or anybody they please, at least so long as the destroyer has a badge.

        • So, let’s conceded that OCers who dress in tacti-cool, carry near schools and the like are within the law.

          The question I am concerned with is whether their exercise of OC has the net effect of immunizing heretofore uncommitted voters or driving them more into the camp of favoring gun-control. I don’t claim to KNOW the net effect; I’m just concerned about the net effect.

          I’d like to figure out what practices to begin with, and then proceed with, that would create the greatest net return of people becoming immunized to guns.

          Recall the pictures and newsreels from the 1960s Civil Rights demonstrations. Black people were neatly dressed; white shirts; black trousers/skirts; neatly groomed. Apart from the “threat” of associating themselves with white people (e.g., eating at the Woolworth’s lunch counter) there was nothing threatening about their appearance or demeanor. Some other images, e.g., of the Black Panthers, were much more aggressive (even absent display of arms.) Which of these images had the greater net-positive effect? Was it that of the Panthers? Or, that of the neatly dressed people?

          Do we want to relax the concerns of the undecided? Or, do we want to heighten their anxiety? Make them more amenable to the pearl-clutching of the Anti’s?

          Do we just not care whether we have public support or opposition?

          Or, perhaps, the belief of some of us PotG is that the greatest shock value we can present the better off our PR will be. I imagine some could make that argument for other groups such as the Gays. By parading in briefs and body paint they won their rights. Maybe those who accomplished the most were those sans briefs. Or, maybe the Occupy Wall Street movement gained it’s support by defecting in the public parks where they camped. Nothing OCiers have done so far is at all comparable to these extreme examples; that’s not the point. Rather, I’m simply acknowledging that there are a couple of examples where groups seemed to have benefited because-of/despite their offense behavior.

          Perhaps we need to identify our audience and then conform our behavior to influence that audience. If we are trying to attract adherents from fringes of radical/revolutionary types then the more outlandish our dress and behavior the more these people would back us. Conversely, if we are trying to attract people with family values (grandparents, parents, conservatives) then such tactics as are offensive to social norms may be counterproductive.

          Some of us PotG are concentrating so intensely on the issue of rights that we loose touch with any other issue; importantly, politics. Our conventional wisdom is that just 3% of the colonial population was in-the-field at any one time to fight for independence. We loose sight of the fact that these 3% were backed by another 30% who were rolling cartridges, hauling water for the cannons and growing crops to feed the troops. This 33% were up against 33% of Royalists/Loyalists with 34% indifferent.

          I trust we all prey we won’t see a second revolution. However, should it devolve to that, wouldn’t it be preferable to have as many supporters as possible? How could we count supporters of the Constitution other than by counting votes for candidates who vote for conservative values such as gun-rights?

          I’m not in the least arguing that no one should ever go OCing dressed as s/he may see fit. Once the issue of guns in polite society and OC specifically is normalized, then so too will “OC as-you-are” will become normalized as well. Thereupon, no one will pay any attention to either OFWGs or New Black Panthers going about their errands bearing AR-15s and AK-47s respectively.

          I’m ONLY concerned with how we can get from where we are not to that happy state where no one cares what we are waring or where we are OCing.

        • Well, if you go by the way people everywhere now seem determined to roll back the long existing gun laws, even in anti bastions like illinios and DC, the positive changes in the polling data, and certain laws that were pending but stalled for years, like OC in Texas, it would certainly appear that whatever the POTG have been doing the past few years has been working.
          Like a pudding, the proof is in eating. Whatever weve been doing, its working. Just look at how desperate the antis have become. Even the Wapo admits it now.

        • Agreed; we are making progress. Sure, it’s not as fast or uniform as we would like; but such is politics.

          The difficulty is figuring out just what aspects of what we are doing are working FOR us and which aspect are working AGAINST us. I claim no great insight.

          I suspect that whenever the Anti’s clutch their pearls it actually HELPS us. We could OC all day all over and raise not a single mention in the MSM. When any of the astroturff Antis scream we get publicity. The question is whether the publicity we get tends to work for us or against us. If the Anti’s sound histrionic whereas we create an image that doesn’t justify the histrionics, then we win. If the image we crate for the MSM photographers tends to support the histrionics, then we play into the hands of the Anti’s message of fear.

          I think OCT got away with the long-gun OC in TX because the other 49 states expected TX to be OCing guns, even long guns. Try that in Delaware and the reaction of the other 49 states would probably be different.

          The most important question for all of us to ask ourselves and one-another is whether we CARE if our tactics are working for/against our cause. Clearly, if we do NOT care whether our tactics advance our cause then we can do whatever we individually damn please. If we DO care, then we need to think about more than a single aspect of the issues in play.

          For example, it seems important to you that what is being done is LEGAL. If it’s LEGAL and we have a RIGHT to do it then it’s acceptable to conduct that behavior. Legal and Right are two aspects out of many. Tomorrow, we may have to conduct (armed) non-violent civil disobedience; e.g., refusing to comply with UBC by making a public spectacle of trading guns without doing BCs. OK, now, we are in violation of the law. Now, we are breaching the “legal” standard. Having staked-out our ground that our OCing in tacti-cool garb – no matter how scary – is LEGAL, how do we explain that we have carried-on with non-violent ILLegal activities? We said we had a RIGHT to OC; do we have a “RIGHT” to sell guns without a BC? The relevant answer will not be given by the founding fathers; it will be given by our audience. If they are unsympathetic to our cause – where we are civilly disobedient – and they haven’t bought-into our reasoning about the right to ignore the laws on BCs, then where are we vis a vis the public in this second issue. It would have been better to groom the public garnering support for guns in civilian hands before we have to appeal for public support of our civil disobedience.

        • The most important question for all of us to ask ourselves and one-another is whether we CARE if our tactics are working for/against our cause.

          Personally, I do care that my choices and my actions facilitate the greater good of advancing gun rights and the normalization of RKBA. But at the same time, I wholeheartedly support the right and freedom of others to exercise their rights in the manner of their own choosing, for their own purposes.

          If there is a “for the greater good” requirement for exercising a right, then the right really isn’t a right, and its exercise really isn’t free.

        • “Personally, I do care that my choices and my actions facilitate the greater good of advancing gun rights and the normalization of RKBA.”

          I also care about what I do. And, I don’t presume that I know everything there is to know. (If I need absolute truth, I can ask my wife.) So, I seek to learn from others on this board and to offer my perceptions in case others are interested in widening their own pattern of thought.

          Speech, for example, is a right for which we admit of few, if any, material limits. Suppose you heard/read of speech purportedly supportive of gun rights which you would not use yourself. Perhaps it’s an ad hominem attack; vulgar; petty. I take it that you would either remain silent; or, express unqualified support for the speaker’s free-speach rights.

          I would argue that such speech tends to undermine the cause and that we PotG ought to air this objection. It’s possible that the speaker has an argument in defense of his ad hominem (etc.) attack on an Anti. Very well, let’s hear him out on why his apparently objectionable remarks might really advance our cause. We might learn something. Conversely, perhaps those of us who remain silent – or defend his free-speech rights without critique to his expressions – are encouraging such speech to the detriment of our cause. Shouldn’t we speak in opposition if we are genuinely interested in advancing our cause?

          “If there is a “for the greater good” requirement for exercising a right, then the right really isn’t a right, and its exercise really isn’t free.”

          “[R]equirement”. Is there a ______ requirement for exercising a right. I don’t think I have asserted a “requirement” per se. Instead, I’ve advanced an argument that the cause we hold dear is multifaceted. The right to bear arms in any manner one chooses ought not to be seen as standing independent of any other right or the objective of achieving any other goal.

          What we are dealing with here seems to be a tightly interwoven combination of the right-to-bear-arms and the right to “speak” by expressing one’s self by one’s dress and deportment. We hold each of these rights in the highest esteem.

          Is it worthy to try to discuss and determine what forms of speech and forms of carry might best advance our causes? If I could be persuaded that by OCing near elementary schools dressed in camo with my Garand – bayonet affixed – would advance our cause then I would like to hear about it.

        • “If there is a “for the greater good” requirement for exercising a right, then the right really isn’t a right, and its exercise really isn’t free.”
          EXACTLY! Well put.
          Hear Hear!
          (I get the Parliamentary channel now) 🙂

      • I’d call his his biases ‘normal’, at least in the sense that there sure seems to be a lot of his type. Or only a few, but a lot of ‘sock puppets’…. 🙂

  36. Wisconsin has always had open carry even prior to conceal carry being made legal but Wisconsin specifically made open carry not illegal. The state AG issued an opinion stating that open carry was not to be construed as disorderly and the legislature amended the law to specifically reflect that. How can you not understand state pre-emption? Maybe these cops do understand it but don’t care because I’ve seen various WI cops cite municipal code and refuse to listen to citizens about what state law says. I wouldn’t even bother telling the cops to call their likely more ignorant supervisor I would tell them to call the County Attorney / County Counsel (NOT the District Attorney or prosecutor) and ask them about the law, that or call the Wisconsin DOJ directly and get some freaking education.

  37. In South Florida, i was attending a gun show on a private property. Took a .22 Marlin from the car to the show to sell. Had it behind my back on sling. Got waived in be the cop who informed me that i cant just carry it in. He helpfully wrapped it in brown paper for me. Other time cop got upset thinking i had a mosin OC – it was just a stock that i bough at yet another gun show 🙂

  38. My town in southern Cook co.,Il is pretty good FOR ILLINOIS. No open carry here so it is non-issue. I occasionally see open carry across the border and nobody seems to care…

  39. At my town in Nebraska, there is no open carry on public property, despite the constitutional protections.

    Am I the first to say, that cop is pretty cute

  40. It’s morons like this who make it hard for the rest of us. There is no reason in the world to be walking around a town looking like you are going into battle. You idiots are not helping the cause at all. You are doing it to make your stupid videos and laugh with your friends in your parents basement. STOP BEING IDIOTS and be responsible, for yourself and for the cause. Morons.

  41. In Nashville, people don’t even notice. In fact the only time I’ve ever had someone question carrying was when my wife’s cousins visited about a month ago. I did get some looks when I carried a holstered 357 around Fall Creek Falls State Park last April but nobody said anything.

  42. I’d have responded by starting, “Now settle down there, little lady…” (j/k)

    Seriously though, with the frequency of mass shootings as of late, I wouldn’t consider it wise to open carry a rifle at all, unless there’s a real need. For example, if possible rioting or something like that. Otherwise though, people can freak out. And not necessarily because they’re against open carry but rather that they don’t know if you are some mass shooter preparing to start lighting people up. It’s one thing if you’re just wearing a holstered pistol, but open carrying a long gun like an AR or AK will get attention a lot of the time.

  43. This open carry has actually got me thinking up what could be a fun experiment to try, i.e. open carry ancient and medieval arms and armor. So instead of the tacticool look,

    Dress up like a Greek hoplite with spear and shield and go walking along? Then as a Roman soldier with shield and pilum (throwing spear). Then if you can horse ride, get a horse and dress up as a medieval knight and go trotting along. Then as a British regular (redcoat) with Brown Bass Musket. If you have a tacticool beard, dressing up as a Viking could work well.

    Officer: “May I ask what you are doing?”

    Me: “Open carry officer.” 😀

    • Hey, I’d normally be down for that. But those SCA members & LARP’ers have already been OC’ing medieval-style for years now….. and nobody takes them seriously. Besides, I don’t have the 8-pack to go Spartan (or an airbrush); and being period-correct while OC’ing in a kilt is just asking for a sex-offender charge.

  44. Okay, I read most of the comments and all of Chip’s. I’m with Chip on this one. I actually felt sorry for that LEO. She felt powerless probably for the first time since she stood in front of a full length mirror in full dress blues.
    On a very small scale, this was freedom dominating tyranny. Awesome!
    Now to answer the question. Atlanta is a very diverse city. Whether OC is accepted depends on the neighborhood. The North side with the corporate transplants from liberal States will most likely “feel uncomfortable”. The South side where the blue collar folks live will have no problem with it. As I read one fellow state on a website comment: “Even Grand Ma Mas be strapped in the ATL”. True that!

  45. It depends on where you are in town here, honestly. Kansas is all over the map when it comes to how people feel about guns, whether open carried or not. The most clearly opposed cities are Lawrence and Prairie Village. Open carriers in either city are absolutely likely to get harassed, whether by cops or the general populace. But in Topeka, it kind of depends on where you are.

    Disclaimer: I have, so far, not open carried anywhere, regardless of the laws. I don’t have the time to be harassed, honestly. The closest I’ve come is when my shirt blows up while I’m on my bike, and then the cars behind me can see. But I’ve never had any issues because of that.

  46. Open carry in Kentucky is ok. I see it all the time. Even next door in Tennessee it’s ok there also. Some have issues with long guns in Tennessee but the police now allow it after the person they arrested won in court.

  47. Not banned, not hassled, but wholeheartedly approved of by our Chief, our Officers, our Elected Officials. Open or concealed carry is quite fine with us. Bring them to the park, bring them into city hall. The only place they aren’t particularly welcome is in the court room when court is in session. Other than a couple of hours twice a month, bring them in. Heck, bring your dogs as well. We’ve got treats for your pooch, from little ankle biters to monsters that weigh more than me. I’m right proud of our little town of about 6,000, right outside Springfield, MO. Ya’ll come in and visit if you’re ever in the vicinity.

  48. Wow. Lots of comments. Personally, I don’t open carry. Living in WI for the last 30 years, I waited a long time to finally legally carry concealed (even though I carried concealed the whole time) I spent 20 of these 30 years in one of the most liberal hellholes on earth, Madison, where even mentioning the word “gun” can cause hissing and shrieking from the local unwashed hippies and stalinists. I learned to carry with utmost discretion and was never spotted, even at lefty events like the weekly farmer’s market. Open carry was legal all that time, but the City of Madison made it policy to harass, arrest and confiscate the firearms of any open carriers, even in defiance of state law. With all that being said, these guys have a right to do what they were doing, whether you agree with their methods or not, whether it makes someone ‘uncomfortable” or not, etc.

  49. I’m failing to see the point of this video? Do we have individuals dressed like they’re going into battle walking the streets? Apparently so. Is it excessive? My opinion, yes.
    Law Enforcement contact is made. Gents want to recite statutes and be uncooperative, well done on looking like tough guys.
    Although the young officer’s communication skills faulted when flustered by these two gents behavior. She does have the right to ask for ID and confirm that you in fact are legally carrying and furthermore to ensure the weapons are legal and registered.
    This media display is a tainted portrait of rights which is appropriate for media setting to display. Yes that was sarcasm.
    Fact of the matter is walking around like this is going to draw attention, realize that when you dress for battle next time you go for a stroll. I’ve seen multiple of these videos and it’s obvious the intent is to gauge police response and be an issue. Stop being jackasses ppl. Acts like this are the reason ppl are trying to take gun rights away. Pure nonsense, grow up gents.

    • “She does have the right to ask for ID and confirm that you in fact are legally carrying and furthermore to ensure the weapons are legal and registered.”

      Nice Statist answer, there, James.

      If OC is legal…then why does she need to ‘confirm’ they are carrying legally? And…registered? Really?

      Hint: We don’t register guns in my state. None of them. There are only a few Statist and Leftist onclaves where gun “registration” is even a thing.

      So, your “suggestions” about what is right don’t apply to most of the country…the US where we have this thing called the Fourth Amendment.

      Unless he is doing something overtly ILLEGAL (with his gun or otherwise), she does not really have the right to ask for ID or confirm anything else whatsoever.

      Even a so-called Terry Stop required ARTICULABLE SUSPICION. You have provided none in your comment. Carry a gun LEGALLY does not constitute ARTICULABLE SUSPICION that a crime has, is or is about to be committed.

      The Statist acquiescent is strong in this country, and it is strangling this nation from top to bottom.

      • I’m not talking about your state. Where this incident took place pistols are required to be registered. It’s comparable to if you’re hunting and the Warden arrives and ask for your license, no big deal. I was doing nothing wrong when he asked for my license but he can verify that I’m hunting legally and carry on just as she can in this case.
        In this community I would have stopped them as well as carrying weapons in this matter is suspicious and uncommon. We can argue perceptions until we’re blue in the face. Maybe in your state, town whatever it is normal for people to walk city streets with multiple weapons on their persons but this is not common for the area, which is a cause for suspicion in my book.
        It was by no means a perfect contact and I would have approached it differently but we’re humans and perfection is not going to happen.

        • Where this incident took place pistols are required to be registered.

          [citation needed]

          I can find no Wisconsin state statute that requires registration of firearms, aside from NFA items.

        • In this community I would have stopped them as well as carrying weapons in this matter is suspicious and uncommon.

          And if that stop constituted an investigatory detention, it would have been unlawful and unconstitutional, absent specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. Would you care to articulate the specific RAS in this specific instance?

          We can argue perceptions until we’re blue in the face. Maybe in your state, town whatever it is normal for people to walk city streets with multiple weapons on their persons but this is not common for the area, which is a cause for suspicion in my book.

          “Not common” and “cause for suspicion” do not rise to the level of unlawful activity, which is the standard for conducting an investigatory detention.

          If you’re an LEO, you need better understanding of the constitution, or you need to find a new career.

    • Law Enforcement contact is made. Gents want to recite statutes and be uncooperative…

      When the LEO is attempting to assert authority that she does not have, it is the right and proper thing to do to be uncooperative.

      Requesting ID? No thanks.

      Don’t walk away while I’m talking to you (but you’re not being detained)? No thanks.

      Get out of my town; we don’t want you here? No thanks.

      I can cite you for violating an unlawful municipal statute? No thanks, and state law says that you’ll be subject to a lawsuit if you try.

      The point is obvious: law enforcement contact should never have been made. The men were doing nothing wrong, and their lawful actions did not constitute RAS of any unlawful activity. LEO are more than welcome to observe, but cross the line when conducting an investigatory detention (which she clearly wanted to do, but knew she wasn’t within her authority to do).

      Although the young officer’s communication skills faulted when flustered by these two gents behavior. She does have the right to ask for ID and confirm that you in fact are legally carrying and furthermore to ensure the weapons are legal and registered.

      Any person has the right to ask anything of another person. The other person, however, is not compelled to answer those questions. What is relevant, when such a voluntary interaction takes place between a private citizen and a law enforcement officer, is that the LEO does not have the legal authority to compel the private citizen to answer such questions, absent specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion of some unlawful activity.

      The law-abiding private citizen is not legally compelled to provide ID to an LEO, without RAS of unlawful activity.

      The law-abiding citizen is not legally compelled to prove that he is legally permitted to carry, where open carry is lawful, without RAS of unlawful activity.

      The law-abiding citizen is not legally compelled to prove that the carried firearm is “legal” (and/or “registered” where registration is not required), without RAS that the firearm is illegal.

      Acts like this are the reason ppl are trying to take gun rights away. Pure nonsense, grow up gents.

      Oh, bull. People are trying to take gun rights away because they want to take gun rights away, period. You think Michael Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein had some epiphany one day, observing some open carriers, and that moment caused them to go on a crusade for civilian disarmament? Are you truly that naive?

  50. Sure they were legal, but sometimes I empathize with the cops when they’re getting antagonized by full-on mall-ninjas. I like seeing the cool cop confrontations, where they actually know their stuff, but I don’t feel like the mall ninja with the single point AR sling is going to make anyone driving by think, “oh hey, look at that random responsible gun owner, I guess that’s not such a big deal.”

    I guess the mall-ninja may be good for one thing with respect to OC demonstrations. You kind of want the point of the demonstration to be that open carry is no big deal. So, after seeing the mall-ninjas make a stand, the average person may finally think, “well at least they seem more even keeled than those yahoos dressed up for counter strike.”

  51. These two were nothing but a couple of dickbags trying to start some shit. They had wandered around in other parts of the city also trying to draw attention to themselves. I have no problem with carrying. I hunt, I shoot, I enjoy my firearms. But these two assholes weren’t trying to educate anyone. They were trying to see what kind of bullshit they could stir up. A concerned citizen called it in because you just never know with all the nutjobs out there, the cop was just doing her job.

    • Which one of your rights has been infringed upon by the actions of these 2 men?

      We’re waiting!!!!

      • Learn to read and comprehend. Where did I say anyone’s rights were being infringed upon? The derelicts were out to do nothing more than cause trouble. Gee, why do you think they had the camera and the scanner on? The cop had every right to stop them and check them out. The only thing I didn’t agree with was when she told them they needed to leave town. The concerned citizen had every right to call it in to dispatch also. Too many whackos out there to know who is and isn’t a law abiding citizen.

  52. Whether these guys were “dickbags” ( a new term ) isn’t the issue. There is no right in the constitution that ensures you will not be offended or irrationally scared. Believe me, I see shit every day that makes me want to go ballistic (planned parenthood, for example). In a free society, that happens. Tough shit. Get over it. My issues and preferences are not yours, and vice versa. I think they were indeed looking for a confrontation, but that’s their right.

  53. I am PRO 2nd amendment…..I do think OC should be done with common sense. I also think that these MALL NINJA’s that think it is COOL to strap on drop holsters, LBE’s with pistol on front and a slung rifle or shotgun are going to get people killed! Yes they have the right to bear arms. Do they really have such low self esteem that they have to strap all of their guns on and walk around in public. Do they think that citizens won’t call 911. Do they not know that the cops will be dispatched and they are required to investigate!

    What is going to happen is LEO’s will quit responding to reports of individuals “dressed in tactical gear with a rifle reports” and the Radical Muslim sympathizers or mentally unstable would be mass murderers will realize they don’t even have to hide their weapons….and people will die.

    What happens if they try to ID these OCer’s and they are unable to get them to cooperate…and the Cops just let them walk off? Then 1 hour later they walk into a school and kill 50 children.

    Just so you know I carry everyday, and can carry anywhere in the US legally. I’m sure I could wear my level 4 load out complete with Ops Core helmet, XD 45 and LMT MK 18 rifle w/10 30 round Pmags, but I don’t. I would rather carry concealed, not draw attention to myself, not let the potential “Bad Guys” know I am armed and not get stopped and questioned by the cops. That way I hope to have the upper hand if it hits the fan.

    • The “mall ninja” phenomena will ware-out and go away just as soon as OC becomes normalized.

      By normalized, I do not mean that 80% OC; nor 40% nor 20%. When just 1% OC, then everyone will get used to the fact that they see 1 or 2 people OC on each trip to the public square.

      Then what? OK, so you are dressed-up as a “ninja” and you are OCing. So what? Everyone is free to OC; you aren’t special. Everyone is free to dress up like a Viking and carry a sward; but, almost no one does it. So, if you are doing it, it’s not the OC that makes you stand-out; rather, it’s the fact that you’re costume is odd.

      I don’t think that we will see terrorists dressed-up as mall ninjas slipping under-the-smoke-screen of 20-somethings making a spectacle of themselves. I would be far more worried about terrorists dressing up in cop uniforms slipping by everyone’s consciousness that cops can go anywhere with their guns. By the same token, no one would pay any attention to men dressed in Brinks uniforms carrying guns.

      I think we need to do whatever we can to promote OC in a way that drives-away the FEWEST number of open-minded neutral people. We need to find techniques to be flamboyant (to get noticed) without being scary. Appearing as OBVIOUSLY a political demonstration will be well-tolerated. E.g., a variety of people dressed in period costumes and the garb we associate with ordinary people in ordinary professions (a butcher’s apron, a baker’s hat) will draw attention and show that ordinary people carry guns safely.

      • Now you are using your head! That’s something I WOULD do… dress up as a baker with chef’s hat and a slung rifle. Ofc I actually wont, for nobody here would even notice much less care. They might notice the costume, but the only response I’d likely get would be: “aren’t you dressed a little strange for a huntin trip?” Montanans are already inured to guns everywhere. And you know what? We never have any mass shootings here. Might it pay to reason out why that might be?

        • I don’t put-forth this suggestion for Montana. What we have to do is think very carefully about our context; and, that’s apt to be extremely localized.

          TX is an excellent illustration. They had this peculiar law making OC of long guns legal but OC of handguns illegal. The great majority of Texans could and WOULD cope with OC of long-gun demonstrations. The great majority of Americans in the other 49 States had to wrap their minds around the idea that OC of handguns in TX was illegal; the idea of a Texan riding his horse into town with a Winchester in a scabbard was what he would have expected from cowboy television serials.

          FL is becoming another unique but very different case. There OC of handguns is illegal unless you are carrying a fishing pole. So, Floridians are going to get used to the idea that the PotG in their State are playing games with the hoplophobes by obeying the law and demonstrating that there is nothing dangerous about OC. By this time Floridians are already very well aware that they are surrounded by CCiers.

          The “baker’s hat” thing is illustrative of what I think might be done in many precincts where there is already a broad awareness of the practice of CC (as is the case in FL), where OC is legal but unheard-of, and where political demonstrations are an acceptable pretext for just about any behavior. Once the uncommitted get used to OC of handguns in the context of a political demonstration then the ground will have been groomed for the practice of OC on a less organized and eventually individual practice.

          Think of the resident who read in her local paper that there were OC demonstrations in past weeks in the town square. Then, she sees small groups of OCiers in the Dunken-Doughnuts. Eventually, she sees her neighbor walking his dog in the evening in her neighborhood OCing. At what point does it seem to her that the proper response is to clutch her pearls and call 911?

    • Non-LEO civilians cannot legally carry in all 50 states, AFAIK. So, IMHO, this reads as yet another, “I support the second amendment, BUT…” statement from a more-equal-than-others Fudd.

      • I am not LEO or civilian…I am LEOSA. I absolutely believe in the 2nd amendment and Constitution and defended them for 6 years active and 7 years ANG. I have mixed feelings about Open Carry especially when I see the “Computer Commando’s” like the ones in the video….”Look at me I have big pistol on my hip and AR 15″ and my buddy is going to film me while I teach the police a thing or two”. After a few hours of walking around in that gear they will go home because they are getting hot and sweaty.

        • LEOSA – like I said: more equal than others. That you choose to qualify your remarks by flaunting the fact that you are more equal than we mere law-abiding citizens (by being able to exercise your second amendment-protected rights in a manner not available to the rest of us) gives me a basis by which to analyze your response.

          The people in the video are lawfully exercising their rights, and doing so in an attempt that their lawful exercise of rights may become less infringed than it is currently. You don’t have that problem, because you have that (fourteenth amendment-violating) special privilege LEOSA permit.

          But, let’s analyze those comments:

          Do they really have such low self esteem that they have to strap all of their guns on and walk around in public.

          Why do you assume that their actions have anything to do with their level of self-esteem?

          Do they think that citizens won’t call 911.

          Once citizens stop calling 911 to report their completely lawful activities, they’ll probably consider that a great success.

          Do they not know that the cops will be dispatched and they are required to investigate!

          No, police are not (legally) obligated to investigate reports of lawful activity. More importantly, even if police choose to investigate, that investigation should not go beyond observation, unless and until there is RAS of some unlawful activity.

          What is going to happen is LEO’s will quit responding to reports of individuals “dressed in tactical gear with a rifle reports”…

          Good! That’s exactly what should happen. Police should not respond to calls reporting lawful activity.

          …and the Radical Muslim sympathizers or mentally unstable would be mass murderers will realize they don’t even have to hide their weapons….and people will die.

          [citation needed]

          I think that assertion is a bunch of specious, nonsense hyperbole. There is zero evidence whatsoever that anything like that has happened, or would happen.

          What happens if they try to ID these OCer’s and they are unable to get them to cooperate…

          Hopefully, nothing – other than constitutionally protected rights get upheld?

          …and the Cops just let them walk off? Then 1 hour later they walk into a school and kill 50 children.

          [citation needed (again)]

          Has this ever happened, in the history of ever? Do people who shoot up schools just waltz around with a rifle for an hour in public, before heading off to their eventual target? Has this happened even once?

          The fears you express are utterly irrational, and not based on the actual occurrences of such events.

        • “The fears you express are utterly irrational,”
          Are they ever! But still par for the course for a statist connected with any administration. Seems like irrationality is a required course. Can you imagine a man, meticulously planning a massacre and going to carry it out in the very near future, advertising that by packing a long gun around town trying to draw as much attention as possible, just ahead of time? Geez, for dumb. I guess even psychotic teenage mass murders are more sane than LEOSAers.
          ALSO:
          “even if police choose to investigate, that investigation should not go beyond observation, unless and until there is RAS of some unlawful activity.”
          I do believe that is not only a should do, but is statutorily required, at least for most places. And if not required, its probably certain that it is official dept policy. OFC I think we all know how well they do at following their own policies. Why half of them on this page spend their time explaining why violating dept policies and violating laws in plumb fine, just so long as they don’t like the look of the guy in question. Seems none of them bothered to read the laws and policies that REQUIRE LEOs to keep their opinions to themselves and out of their professional life, at least while on duty.

  54. Mostly, only place I’ve been asked to leave my gun in vehicle was at a gas station named “Freedom”.

    Superior, WI

    CORRECTION: Open carry in a vehicle IS legal.

Leave a Reply

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