CapArms Question of the Day: Is Open Carry Stupid and Silly?

TTAG commentator FlaBoy (not shown) posted this less-than-entirely-supportive comment underneath Dean’s article Open Carry at Arizona’s Yuma Regional Medical Center:

Sorry to voice what may be an unpopular opinion on this story, but I, for one, think open carry in general is stupid and silly.

In terms of self-protection, as many others point out, it can be counter productive, when compared to concealed carry. I am certainly not against concealed carry of firearms. I have a concealed carry permit (required in my state) and always carry, usually ignoring signs, etc to the contrary, including my doctor’s office.

I do open carry on the farm and in the woods, but that’s different than open carry in the general public. Open carry in the general public serves to inflame the anti-gunners (and realize there are more of them then there are of us…just look up the city population vs. the rural population, opinions of the younger generations, etc..) and, I think, it’s just a form of exhibitionism.

In the long run, open carry is not supporting our rights as much as it is counterproductive to continuing our rights, since we need the tolerance of the vast majority of the non-gun-interested population’s continued ignoring and nonsupport of the anti-gunners efforts. “In your face” open carry in places where they are with their kids and family doesn’t help us in the long run.

Point taken?

comments

  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    That’s right, just sit in the back of the bus and keep your mouth shut, boy. Don’t make trouble, ya hear?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Fly, honey, vinegar?

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        I don’t know how plainly I can say this:

        If someone hates you for carrying your gun, no amount of capitulation or appeasement is going to make them like you. They will always hate you as long as you own guns. You have a better chance of converting a member of ISIS into an upstanding American citizen than you do convincing a rabid anti gunner that carrying a gun in any way is okay. Simply hiding from them is giving them what they want, and it will empower them to seek further restrictions against you.

        Do not attempt to appease them, do not give in to their demands. You will get nothing from it and lose everything. Period. End of story. Done. Finished.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          It is not a matter of appeasement. It is a matter of influence, positive and negative. The audience for all our bleating about the second amendment, “absolutism”, “RTKBA”, “shall not be infringed” is not, is not the anti-gun crowd. The audience is the non-aligned (which may actually be so few as to not matter). Open carry may only add to the anti-gun crowd those who are oblivious, happy to not be bothered about “gun issues”. Do we want the non-aligned to remain neutral, or provide impetus for them to run to the anti-gun side?

          Point is, “in your face” may sound good, may feel good, but does it do any good?

        2. avatar D Y says:

          I was about to say the same.

          One thing I’d like to add is that increased exposure to something (violence on tv/movies anyone?) generates tolerance. Doubly so if people see open carriers as normal, rational, respectful individuals. The only way to combat anti-gun media IMO is to make sure that gun owners are not allowed to be seen as they are portrayed. Anti-gunners continue to try and marginalize gun owners in society, increased exposure to pro-gun individuals is not going to hurt the cause, if it’s done respectfully. The vocal anti’s are going to have issue regardless of open or concealed carry. Guns are the problem to them, not how they are carried. It’s just another way they can attack gun owners, but it’s irrelevant…notice that massive demonstrations of open carry have not resulted in a groundswell of support for banishment of it.

          Not everyone anti-gun is rabid. No doubt that a rabid anti-gunner will not be swayed, because their opinion is not based on rational thought. The other anti-gun people, who form their opinion from being lied to on a daily basis, CAN be swayed by facts and experience.

          The same is true of hunting with a rifle like an AR, where legal. If you aren’t a dirtbag when people run into you, they’ll take notice of the weapon, but they’ll also remember that it was not a big deal, because of you.

          Even if I don’t agree with the viewpoint of someone using the 1A to express themselves, I won’t advocate for the restriction on that right. Even though I may or may not agree with open carry, it’s not my place to tell everyone else how to behave. And it’s certainly not a good idea to give the anti’s that chink in our collective armor.

        3. avatar chuck says:

          Had my high school reunion this past weekend. I was honestly a little shocked when two of my classmates struck up gun conversations with me and talking about my and their carry choices. I had been on the outside back in the day with them, being a knuckle dragging bible carrying neanderthal, because I was interested in firearms technology back in my younger stupider days. Admittedly I had written them off as drinking the blue kool aid and would always be progressive bernie bots. What changed then? They had both had home invasions. One while at work thankfully and the other after they had gone to bed but were luckily able to resist with a baseball bat. After that shock of reality and seeing how long it took the police to come and take pictures and statements they decided to tool up and get educated.

        4. avatar Eli2016 says:

          I prefer to carry open but Sam does have a point. Why give ammo (no pun intended) to a segment of society that is obviously insane when it comes to particulars. In my state it really depends on whether you’re in the city or the suburbs. I happen to live in the suburbs so when I carry I don’t pay attention to the printing. OWB is more comfortable for me but if I go in the city to do some banking or hang out at the public library I go IWB. Most of the stores and restaurants where I live are not gun free zones so I’m fortunate to be able to carry pretty freely.

        5. avatar Ad Astra says:

          Sure glad reasoning like that didn’t take precedent at the Constitutional Convention.

          Grow up, someone voiced an opinion you don’t care for so what?

      2. avatar Somebody says:

        I have actually tried this, and I can assure you that a saucer of vinegar catches more flies than a saucer of honey.

        If you are actually interested in catching non-metaphorical flies, go with vinegar.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Fascinating. Did you perhaps do a controlled replication of the experiment? Could your results be reproduced by a disinterested neighbor? Did you apply for a government grant? (If not, you missed out on a good deal).

          Seriously, I would like to see the study published. I did not know the old adage was incorrect. One can never stop learning.

      3. avatar clst1 says:

        Bull Sh*t will catch more.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A curious experiment. Thinking outside the box. Good on ya’, mate.

      4. avatar Hank says:

        Shockingly, flies actually are indeed attracted to vinegar. One great way to rid a house of flies is a jar half filled with vinegar, with a cover, with holes just big enough for the flies to get in, and placed near the source of the infestation.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thanks to those who expanded my knowledge today. I’ve seen those lists of “100 things you can do with Vinegar”, but catching flies never appears on the list. Whoodathunk?

    2. avatar Resident ct says:

      Open carry has definitely normalized gun ownership as well as informing people that guns can be seen and not hurt people. In connecticut it has allowed concealed carry the extra margin of safety from harassment when hysterical anti gun zealots have public tantrums when the glimpse a gun.

      The false outrage of anti gun zealots trying to shame gun owners into the closet has been pushed back by open carry. You may not aprove of open carry, and yes as in every human endeavor there are those that take it too far, but it should be self evident that appeasement and cowing to loud mouth anti gun bullies is a sure way to loose all our rights.

    3. avatar Federico Pete says:

      Awesome answer…most pro-conceal carry folks say the same thing. Don’t open carry your sidearm, someone won’t like it. With all due respect (and there isn’t much from me),
      if you don’t like me carrying my handgun in public, close your eyes…

      1. yeah…too much butthurt going around on both sides. I don’t share the same opinion as FlaBoy but that’s his opinion. No reason to get defensive abut it. He’s not a lawmaker, as far as I know.
        My goal isn’t to avoid scaring people who don’t understand open carry. My goal is to cure them of their irrational fear.

  2. avatar Baldwin says:

    Is Open Carry Stupid and Silly? No. However…if the carrier is stupid and silly…

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Yep.

    2. avatar binder says:

      Exactly. I carry in Chicago. I don’t really worry if my shirt rides up or if i “print”. Why do you ask, because I don’t look, dress or act like a gang banger. I know of at least 3 times a Cop “made” me. I eat lunch in a few places that are cop hangouts. And to be honest with you, CPD in jeans and tactical vests look way more like criminals than I do. Now that’s a bad look if you want to open carry
      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6d/0d/20/6d0d209318f3dccd4a7050b9d6e3b6f9.jpg

  3. avatar Baldwin says:

    Is Open Carry Stupid and Silly? No. However…if the carrier is stupid and silly…

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Holy echo Batman!

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        Anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

  4. avatar Steven says:

    There you go; Giving a fuck when it isn’t your turn to give a fuck.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      that happens alot

  5. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

    I’ve never seen this “Open-Carry vs. Concealed-Carry” debate. I can’t wait to see the reaction.

    Actually, it’s fascinating to watch the same debate over and over with topics such as this, caliber wars, etc.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      It needs to be revisted every so often, even if only for the sake of newcomers. What I dislike are comment boards on whatever topic (guns, cars, business, sports, home improvement, etc.) which are dominated by the same sad set of regulars since 2005.

      These are people whose surly response to any newcomer’s question is to “Go do a search! Go read this thread, and this one, and all of these from 2009! We’ve already hashed out all those topics!!!!!!”

    2. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      If you really want to see something over done to titanic and vomit inducing proportions, go to a gaming/sword blog/channel and look up “end them rightly”.

  6. avatar Timao Theos says:

    Open carry is allot of things, using words to describe

    open carry like “stupid and silly”

    is silly and stupid.

  7. avatar Steve says:

    Open carry has its place as does concealed carry. Where open carry is socially accepted, nothing wrong with it and then the carry method becomes a choice. If it is socially acceptable and someone freaks out. Tough. I don’t feel that ‘we’ should open carry en-mass to show that we can such as in a demonstration. Where open carry is not expected but concealed is allowed obviously ‘we’ should carry concealed.
    .

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      And yet part (not all) of the point of open carry is to advance the cause of making it “socially acceptable”.

  8. avatar EJQ says:

    I don’t really care if your choice is open carry, but, at this point, my choice is concealed. My comfort level physically may be compromised, but I feel if in a situation where a bad guy with a gun sees me first, openly carrying, before I see him, I’m in the “Shoot me first” category.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      It’s funny when people “feel” what a good strategy or tactic is, as opposed to knowing after having gathered the facts. Think of all the bank robberies out there, for example. Even those that do involve an armed robber, rarely entail shooting the armed guard at all, let alone pre-emptively.

      “Shoot me first” is only apt to come into play when there is a lot of money kniwn to be at stake and a strong likelihood of receiving return fire. So you will see that with armored car takedowns. Otherwise, the score isn’t worth the rap.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      So, where are all these open carriers being victimized by being in the “shoot me first” category?

      Anyone? Beuller?

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Yep. It’s at the same level as the anti’s hysteria about the passing of CC laws and the prediction of “blood in the streets”.

      2. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

        (Sorry, I can’t respond to your question because I was shot first while open carrying…)

        NOT! If being shot first was truly as common as some want us to believe, wouldn’t you think the MSM would be all over that, cramming the uncomfortable truth down our throats at every opportunity? To me, the fact that we’re not hearing about it is irrefutable evidence that it just ain’t happening.

        I’ve been open carrying since 2010, mixed in with CC once it became legal (which will tip off the more observant readers that I hail from one of two states…), and it’s been an eye-opening experience. As others have said, most people either don’t notice or don’t care, and 90% of my interactions with others who make mention of my firearm have been positive encounters.

        Normalizing carry of firearms through OC is progressing despite the naysayers – after all, if no one can see your gun, how will the public ever become comfortable in the presence of them?

  9. avatar Xcom says:

    Simple answer: To each their own.

    Make both legal. If you want to do either, you can deal with the pro’s and con’s yourself.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      But Fla Boy is probably so indoctrinated with Floriduh’s open carry prohibition that he’s probably on the front lines when it comes to keeping it illegal…

  10. avatar 2aguy says:

    Open carry is less tactically wise than concealed carry…but…..some states don’t give you an option….also….as to the anti gunners….when non gun owners see normal people carrying a gun, going about their lives…..it combats the notion that gun owners are crazed killers…..the push for concealed carry helps the anti gunners….non gun owners may never be exposed to normal people carrying guns, so their fear of gun owners is never addressed..
    Except by anti gunners who lie about them….

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…when non gun owners see normal people carrying a gun, going about their lives…..it combats the notion that gun owners are crazed killers…”

      We all wish that were so. Unfortunately, it more likely identifies the open carrier as a person who might be on the verge of killing everyone in sight. There lies the conundrum.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        [citation needed]

      2. avatar Paul S. says:

        “Open carry is less tactically wise than concealed carry”

        That has NEVER been proven. However, it has been proven that open carry can and will deter crime. There is no proof concealed carry has any tactical advantage, period.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Concealed carry has the advantage of surprise. The problem is that your Bad Guy may have commenced his crime oblivious to the fact that one or more of his victims is armed. Once the crime is underway your only option may be to draw (from concealment) and fire (to stop the threat).

          The advantage of open carry is that Bad Guy enters the bank/Quickie Mart/movie theater lobby, sees one or more customers open carrying high quality, well maintained pistols in proper retention holsters and says, “Fuck this, I’m outa here!”

          No shots fired, no lawyers, no paperwork.

        2. avatar Kyle says:

          I find that pretty hard to swallow. A pistol is best employed as a surprise weapon. If you know your going to be in a gunfight, bring a rifle.

          I cant see how can it be disproved, or even reasonably disputed, that concealed is a far better tactical option then open.

          Perhaps if the statistical base were to include police it could be easily disproved, as they are in uniform so concealed, or not, is irreverent, as everyone will assume they are armed.

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          i think cliff means in the sense that the perp will discover he’s about to be in a gunfight that he may not have planned for, whether there are rifles involved or not.
          carry.
          open carry broadcasts, but is faster on the draw for me.
          concealed is the only option i’m allowed in state.

          i would venture a guess, with no real sample to draw from, that around parts of chicago open carry would inspire much unwanted attention and public shrieking. i can imagine being surrounded by in your face bobbing heads while little kids dance around trying to pluck and (not the) snatch the piece from it’s holder.
          this is solely my projection alone.

        4. avatar ThomasR says:

          That has been my experience.CliffH. I’ve OC’d now for the last 9 years here in NM. A couple of times I encountered a human predator on the hunt. I would be sure to show my firearm on my hip and the fact I was aware of their presence, and they would suddenly remember they needed to be some place else.

      3. avatar Ben says:

        I’d love to see some stats on that… really. Please post those stats… Waiting…

      4. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

        The thing is the people who get the most emotional about seeing those with guns. Fear the person they see as if it were they themselves carrying the gun.
        Proving you are Not them in the end proves they don’t have to fear being that way either.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Open carry is less tactically wise than concealed carry…

      [Citation Needed]

  11. avatar Anner says:

    I agree with the tactical implications of open carry. Unless you’ve got global SA on every individual around you, or you’re in a situation with built-in standoff (out in the woods, in a vehicle, on a motorcycle, etc), openly carrying a handgun is an invitation to get confronted first. Why advertise and forfeit an option?

    I carry to protect the wellbeing of my family and myself. That is my only objective. I don’t carry as a political symbol. If a soccer mom freaks out and calls the PD because they see a handgun on my hip, and I’m detained while the PD sorts out the story, how did that help with the wellbeing of my family?

    If a BG emerges and I’m just standing in line at the gas station, I can slowly back pedal as the thief grabs cash, draw while outside his field of view, and then take action if necessary. I can think of just a couple narrow examples where openly carrying is a benefit, such as the intangible effect of advertising “I’m prepared” to a potential BG. But even in scenarios where it may help (remember my one and only objective of carrying at all), it does more damage in forfeiting the option to remain a ghost until I choose exactly when and how I will employ or threaten to employ lethal force.

    The only other good reason I’ve found for open carry is when I was 18-20yrs old and couldn’t legally carry concealed. I could still open carry on most states I visited without a permit.

    Openly carrying as a matter of political principle when concealed carry is an option is tactically retarded.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      Yeah, just conceal so that no one asks questions, and no one accepts the facts that guns are out there, anyway. Got it. Hide that thing; it’ll scare the sheep. Right.

      And you can have your own opinions, just keep them to yourself, as some people might not like them. If you’re going to treat the Second Amendment like you do, that’s how you need to honor the First Amendment.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Way NOT to read a single rational thing the man had to say.

      2. avatar Anner says:

        My post had nothing to do with 2A rights. 2A rights have nothing to do with self defense; the 2A is purely about maintaining the means to resist gov’t tyranny. However, I own firearms for both purposes.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      Anner, I completely get this is where intuition takes people, and I prefer concealed carry, so don’t get me wrong, but if, as we know, the mere presence of a gun deters a crime in progress, does not then an openly carried gun dissuade crimes before they start? I suspect it does, and I know from experience the sight of a holstered handgun alters the demeanor of a certain element of society. Im not into open carry for several reasons, none of which is a concern about being targeted or shot first.

      To say there is no value in open carry is either misinformed or disingenuous, to say that it trumps concealed carry is apples to oranges. I still prefer concealed carry, but not to the exclusion of open carry. Each has merits and draw backs, like most things do.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        If a crime is in progress it is too late to deter it.

        The other worm (of many) in the can that open carry can wrought is that of walking into a robbery in progress and judging by the situation it may not be a good idea to intervene. If BG spots gun on your hip any move you make, even if your intentions are to retreat could result in him believing you are making a furtive movement.
        Another worm is that there is not a retention holster that I’m aware of that I trust to retain from someone wishing to take it off my hip if they REALLY wanted to, nor that I wish to draw from if my life or of those that I love is on the line.

        1. avatar mer says:

          “…in progress too late to deter it”
          What do you call where someone starts a crime, someone else brandishes a firearm, the original someone backs down and leaves?
          Would that not be a “crime in progress” stopped by the mere presence of another firearm?

          Perhaps open carry is the “precrime” equivalent of stopping the crime yet to be in progress.

          Does OC make you a primary target? Perhaps. But perhaps it makes the criminal-to-be move on and choose a different target. Kind of like those “Protected by ADT” signs make burglars move to the next house.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Anner,

      … openly carrying a handgun is an invitation to get confronted first. Why advertise and forfeit an option?

      Or … openly carrying a handgun is an invitation to get confronted LAST since there are easier victims to attack. Why conceal and forfeit an option to prevent an attack that would otherwise happen? Remember, the only attack that you are guaranteed to survive is the attack that never happens in the first place.

      Let’s be honest: no one has any good data whether or not your odds of prevailing are better with open carry versus concealed carry. Choose what you like.

    4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      I agree with the tactical implications of open carry. Unless you’ve got global SA on every individual around you, or you’re in a situation with built-in standoff (out in the woods, in a vehicle, on a motorcycle, etc), openly carrying a handgun is an invitation to get confronted first. Why advertise and forfeit an option?

      There are millions of people carrying openly. Where are all the ones getting confronted by would-be criminals?

      I carry to protect the wellbeing of my family and myself. That is my only objective. I don’t carry as a political symbol. If a soccer mom freaks out and calls the PD because they see a handgun on my hip, and I’m detained while the PD sorts out the story, how did that help with the wellbeing of my family?

      I consider the well-being of my family advanced not only by the short-term protection afforded by my daily carry, but also by the protection and advancement of their rights and their liberty to exercise those rights.

      If a BG emerges and I’m just standing in line at the gas station, I can slowly back pedal as the thief grabs cash, draw while outside his field of view, and then take action if necessary.

      Odds are, that remains true, regardless of your method of carry. A BG who has already determined to hold up the gas station will generally be focused solely on the source of his theft: i.e. the cashier. He’s already paying no attention to you.

      I can think of just a couple narrow examples where openly carrying is a benefit, such as the intangible effect of advertising “I’m prepared” to a potential BG. But even in scenarios where it may help (remember my one and only objective of carrying at all), it does more damage in forfeiting the option to remain a ghost until I choose exactly when and how I will employ or threaten to employ lethal force.

      Or, more likely, it causes the BG to reconsider his target, and to move on to greener pastures. Anecdotal evidence supports that outcome. Surveys of actual criminals support that outcome. Criminal psychology supports that outcome.

      The only other good reason I’ve found for open carry is when I was 18-20yrs old and couldn’t legally carry concealed. I could still open carry on most states I visited without a permit.

      There are lots of valid reasons to carry openly. OWB holsters are worlds more comfortable than IWB holsters. Hot, humid weather greatly favors open carry. Etc.

      But ultimately: the reasons are irrelevant, because carrying a firearm is a natural right, and not subject to needs, opinions, or whims of others.

      Openly carrying as a matter of political principle when concealed carry is an option is tactically retarded.

      Flat-out wrong, and exactly converse to the truth. Carrying concealed as a matter of political principle, when carrying openly is an option, is tactically retarded. When carrying as a matter of political principle, the only way to advance that principle is by carrying openly. Carrying concealed advances no political principle, because concealed is concealed.

      1. avatar Z says:

        That was a well thought-out response, you said exactly what I had in mind.

        1. Welcome to the Chip Bennett Fan Boi Club.

      2. avatar Anner says:

        Chip, I appreciate the thoughtful and thorough reply. I agree that the lack of anecdotal evidence surrounding the “makes you a target” argument makes the stance difficult to support. However, I see it this way: I don’t advertise my phone number to folks that don’t need it, nor the composition of my family, my daily route to work, or any information about my family whatsoever. I don’t know if this line of thought really matters, because I don’t know if anyone is ever going to attempt to use information about me to take advantage of my family. However, it costs me nothing to avoid handing over information that other people don’t need to know. Openly carrying communicates to everyone within sight that 1) you own guns (I live in Texas, literally everyone does, so I’m making no unique political statement anyway by openly carrying), 2) you own a particular type of gun, 3) you make a habit of carrying guns, 4) and if they see you with different guns, of various types, they know your home contains all those guns. Why give up all that information when a simple t-shirt draped over a holster avoids it?

        As to long term liberties: Carrying has nothing to do with my support for 2A rights. 2A has nothing to do with self defense, it is purely about resistance to gov’t tyranny. I’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars ($15k in one particular lawsuit, which TTAG covered) purchasing firearms and accessories, suppressors, introducing probably 40-50 new shooters to the sport (so far, and usually supplying all my own gear and ammo), competing, spending a little more to support an LGS vs. an online retailer, and chipping in my part to help my parents open their own ammo business. I’ve submitted a half dozen or so articles to TTAG, had maybe 3-4 of them published (I’m a boring writer), and typed up 30ish pages of my own notes on the broad topic of firearms to hand down to my children. I support gun ownership, the free and legal use of firearms, businesses that do the same, and TTAG staff in spreading the good word. I have zero data to rely on for this statement beyond my own experience with fellow gun owning friends, but I’m willing to bet I’ve done a solid sig fig above the average American gun owner to further responsible gun ownership and awareness of the value of 2A rights. Strapping on an openly carried handgun shows a passerby “hey, he’s carrying a gun.” Making friends and introducing them to our sport, or having a thoughtful discussion with someone on 2A rights actually covers some ground. And THAT is one of the ways I ensure the longterm wellbeing of my family.

        The gas station example: It’s but one example, so there are holes in that story. How about the rash of multi-thug break-ins that TTAG has covered the last few weeks? BG1 is focused on the money or whatever, but BG2 scans the crowd, sees the pistol on your hip and shouts “gun!” I’ve watched a lot of security camera footage of robberies and assaults, and it’s probably 40% a multi-thug event.

        As to a BG seeing a gun and reconsidering: If it’s a multi-thug event, and they’re armed, I’ve watched that play out two ways. The BGs either immediately retreat, or stand and fight. I’m pretty average with a pistol, so I’d desperately want to start shooting at them when their attention is focused elsewhere. Carrying concealed helps ensure that I retain the option to shoot when I want to, not when they see me and force the issue. That extra time may give me a chance to slide behind some cover and brace my wrist against a wall, resulting in a steadier shot.

        OWB holsters: I’ve carried OWB many times, but always concealed. In winter, a good jacket works. In summer (Arizona, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Utah), a slightly extended length t-shirt works. Wear a thick gunbelt to ensure the holster doesn’t sag down and expose the muzzle below the bottom of the overgarment.

        The reasons are irrelevant: agreed. Carry how you wish, and I sincerely applaud anyone that carries however they want to; open, concealed, IWB, OWB, slung rifle, thunderwear…makes no difference to me. However, the point of my post is to explain why I will never open carry in an urban or suburban environment. While hiking I’m wearing a G20 in a Kenia Chest Holster. While on horseback, it’s a variety of handguns in a leather OWB (open) holster. Those are my methods, and I contribute them here so others can make their own decisions.

        As to political principle, I mentioned that I do not carry as a matter of political principle. I carry for the immediate wellbeing of my family. Should the gov’t need a reminder of the meaning of the 2A, you can bet I’ll have an arsenal on display. Until that time, I’ll carry concealed in most circumstances.

    5. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

      Anner,

      You seem to be operating under the assumption that the miscreant in your gas station scenario is planning to shoot anyone he needs to to make his robbery a success. If you are carrying concealed the robber ignores you, points his gun at the clerk, gets the money and leaves. If you are open carrying the robber comes in, sees your gun, shoots you, points his gun at the clerk, gets the money, and leaves.

      This, to me, is not a very likely scenario. More probable to me is that he comes in, sees your gun, leaves, and heads for the next gas station down the street. The only scenario I can imagine the BG might want to take you first is the Pulse Nightclub / San Bernadino one, where the intent is to shoot everyone there. In that case, he is not going to look around for open carriers, he is going to start shooting upon entry, shooting the closest people first. If you are the closest to him you would never have had a chance to draw anyway. If not, you have a chance to find some concealment before it’s your turn, and the fact that you are open carrying is moot.

      So in the first scenario we have a robber, who just wants money and doesn’t want to kill anyone, being deterred. In the second we have Mr. Aloha Snackbar working the room from the door inward, and it is just the luck of the draw (pun intended) whether you have a chance to draw and return fire before he gets to you.

      In neither scenario does the fact that you are open carrying put you at a tactical disadvantage.

  12. avatar Ebvan says:

    People certainly exercise their rights protected by the First Amendment publicly in Stupid and Silly ways all the time. While I feel that open carry is not for me, I am loath to inhibit a law abiding citizen’s Second Amendment protected right to carry a firearm without criminal intent, or to be Stupid and/or Silly.

  13. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I see a lovely woman walking a cute dog, presumably through her own neighborhood, and not bothering or provoking anyone. How is that “in your face” in any way?

    I know. It isn’t, and that’s perhaps not the picture that prompted the original comment. Yet, the above picture does depict a routine example of open carry. So why mischaracterize OC in general as being conducted by “in your face”, counterproductive jackwagons?

    The answer likely has far more to do with the original poster’s prejudices than with the merits of OC itself.

    1. avatar Snatchums says:

      Actually I think that if more women were OC it might actually help normalize it since they’re (usually) less threatening and (usually) less apt for acts of violence.

      Not long ago I saw a very attractive young blonde filling up her car at the gas station while she had a G19 on her hip. Nothing about her raised any kind of “agent” status in my head by her appearance and demeanor, just a hot chick with a heater.

  14. avatar Bil says:

    Yep, absolutely stupid. These open-carry idiots do more harm to the 2A movement that Shannon Watts.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      Hide that thing… be embarrassed that you carry. Good choice. Oh, and be embarrassed about your opinions; don’t speak them in public, either. It works with the First AND Second.

      Open carry is only a problem to those Second Amendment Butters… You support the Second Amendment But… not for open carry.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      If in fact they are “open carry idiots”, you might have a point, and we all know that YouTube is full of those videos, but I hardly think that Dan, or RF, or me for that matter, qualify as “open carry idiots”.

      There is a time and place for everything. Open carry is not right for all situations, as I have a character in one of my books comment when asked why concealing rather than open, “Sometimes it’s not a good idea to upset the muggles.”

      But open carry serves two important purposes, when it is appropriate: 1. It provides a visual deterrent to criminal activity, at little risk of the “shoot me first” straw man, and 2. It gently convinces some of the muggles that people with guns are not monsters, they are your neighbors.

      If you open carry just to get a rise out of people or to antagonize a cop into appearing in your next YouTube extravaganza, then you’re an idiot.

  15. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

    As a well worn expression says, an opinion is like an ass@ole, everybody has one. If that’s your deal, carry on. If not for you then don’t!

  16. avatar Swilson says:

    Who cares, to each their own. All the videos on youtube of the open carriers intentionally trying to provoke a response from the cops is a little obnoxious and I’m not sure what it accomplishes. But in my life, I’ve never seen an “in your face” open carrier.

    “Am I being detained!?!?!?!”

    1. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

      “I’m not driving, I’m travelling”

    2. avatar G says:

      I am not a person, i am a sea fairing vessel.

  17. avatar Domestic Hearse says:

    A friend of mine is moving. He gave me a stack of gun magazines. I’m reading Tactical Shooter from 2002. In it, Massad Ayoob wrote a long article, with photos, advocating concealed versus open carry. His argument, in a nutshell, can be boiled down to grayman. You don’t draw attention to yourself. You don’t have to worry about how you stand in a line, waiting to pay for your gas, whether your piece is accessible to the guy behind you. Nobody pays attention to you at the store, theater, or soccer field.

    Later in the magazine, Mas wrote another article in favor of the isosceles stance vs the Weaver.

    Both arguments were ahead of their time, when pistol shooters were still thinking like Col Jeff Cooper: That a pistol must start with a caliber beginning with 4, be worn on the hip open carry in Condition One, and be fired using the Modern Pistol Technique — Weaver stance.

    How far we’ve come.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      I love Mas Ayoob. I’ve read several of his books, love his self-defense and legal advice. He is a gem, and an asset to our community.

      But his “we must not scare the gun muggles” stance on open carry is simply wrong.

      1. avatar Anner says:

        It’s not an issue of scaring away potential 2A allies or alienating the masses. I don’t have that particular article from Mas, but I’ve read similar articles and books by him. His argument is exactly what the gentleman above stated: remain unremarkable in appearance and retain options for how and when you will react. Maintain the initiative of response, lest you push the issue simply by your appearance and remove the retreat option.

        Every police officer targeted and attacked because they’re a cop is a good example. The cop hater doesn’t know a thing about the person they’re attacking, just that they’re wearing a uniform. If that cop was off duty and in plain clothes, they wouldn’t have been a target. This in no way argues for cops not to wear a uniform, just states that the uniform is what provides the visual cue to a lunatic to select a target. The same applies to US servicemembers on patrol in urban streets overseas. Remove the uniform and obvious gear, wear local clothes, and it could be anybody. They do not have the luxury of doing so, but I do.

  18. avatar Paul S. says:

    “In your face” open carry in places where they are with their kids and family doesn’t help us in the long run.”

    That’s a load of crap. People freely speak whenever and wherever so I can carry where is allowed and legal. We can’t make excuses that we shouldn’t carry by small children or here or there because we might “scare someone”. If that’s the case then all police shouldn’t carry around children either and just because they wear a badge doesn’t make them any better than us.

    We have the right under the constitution to bear arms. We have the right to exercise that right just as much as the person that has the right to exercise their first amendment right. Stop hiding and making excuses for something we have a right to.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      Very well said…

  19. avatar Smith says:

    I don’t want anyone to know that I am carrying. Open only makes sense if your occupation requires it. Everybody else are just squirrelly a$$ people that want attention.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Oh, well I guess that settles that.

      Wait, what about someone for whom OC is just more comfortable? What if you prefer a larger, heavier firearm, which doesn’t lend itself to concealed carry?

      What if you prefer a rentention holster so that you’re less likely to lose your gun in a fall or a fight? I suppose such a holster might exist in an inside the waistband version, but outside the waistband versions are clearly more widely available.

      Maybe it isn’t such a settled issue, after all?

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Or perhaps we want the bad guys to spot our weapon and decide they would rather take their attention elsewhere.Nobody likes a hostile work environment.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Everybody else are just squirrelly a$$ people that want attention.

      More psychological projection from an anti-open carry Fudd.

  20. avatar Pwrserge says:

    I would point out that “gay pride” parades have done more for the cause of “gay rights” than years of lobbying. Why should the 2A be different?

    On a side note, I open carry on my property all day every day. It would be nice not to have to throw on a second shirt or change guns and holsters when I need to go run an errand.

    I think people are grossly overstating the tactical down sides. Few criminals are quite that stupid.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Natural selection – the stupid ones, and the ones who are just bad at being criminals, will tend to get caught / shot / etc. more often.

    2. avatar Reverend1 says:

      Amen…. I OC all the time for seven years now. Have never had a problem. Our Sheriff is even glad to have locals open carry.

  21. avatar Joe R. says:

    It’s so stupid that it’s the only thing that cops do more regularly than donuts. Sometimes they conceal carry too.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Pretty sure they don’t conceal carry the jelly donuts, though 😉

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Deep conceal.

        1. avatar Mosinfan says:

          They still “print”, look at their fingers and shirt fronts.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Buy a police remand pistol, just cleaned, back from the armory. Dust it for donuts, boom. Run it thru ballistics, it’s the same Dunkin Donuts coffee.

          And I sincerely just overly appreciate my own poor attempt at humor here. Love cops. Love cops more who live to serve the people of their jurisdictions, pray nightly they get home safe to their families. Have some in my family.

  22. avatar No one of consequence says:

    It’s been my experience that most people are completely oblivious to open carriers in their midst … unless said OCers are trying to get attention. Like Chipotle Ninjas, as a for-instance.

    But then, most people are in Condition White most of the time. So maybe it isn’t surprising.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      If I remember correctly the supposed “Chipotle Ninjas” were trying to make a larger point, not just carrying long guns because they were being idiots.

      The point was that in Texas it was legal to open carry long guns or shotguns but not pistols (with certain very limited exceptions) and they felt this was wrong. They carried their long guns to illustrate the absurdity of the law and attempt to get the legislature to address the issue of open carry of pistols.

      The earned a pejorative moniker, but in the long run they won that battle. It would be interesting to find out how many of that crew actually open carry pistols today.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        I didn’t say the CNs were idiots, I said they were deliberately trying to attract attention. Which they did.

        Most open carriers who don’t attract attention (for whatever reason and by whatever means, idiotic or not) go unnoticed, in my experience.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          I think the Chipotle Ninjas were awesome. I think their humor, intended or otherwise was a perfect astringent for any butt-hurt. They looked rag-tag and it made me smile. Glad they didn’t take too much heat for it, and I appreciate their efforts.

          If Archibald Willard were alive, he would paint their spirit as the new “Spirit of ’76” (f/k/a: “Yankee Doodle”).

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Like Chipotle Ninjas, as a for-instance.

      The so-called “Chipotle Ninjas” asked for, and had, permission for their open-carry group to meet at that establishment. Their presence there was minimally newsworthy (at best) for those at the establishment at the time.

      Oh, and by the way: the open carry group was at the time fighting for open carry to be legalized in Texas.

      Open carry is now legal in Texas.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Viva la Revolution

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Viva la Revolution”

          ¡Viva Max!

  23. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

    Openly carrying a firearm is simply the initiator of observation of the behavior and character of the carrier. A civilized person with a gun is still primarily and predominantly a civilized person. A rude person is still primarily and predominantly a rude person.

    Civilized people are aware of and try to understand and accommodate the sensibilities of the people around them. If I were to be with a group in which I knew or suspected the presence of my openly carried gun would be troubling, I’d conceal it.

    As for openly carrying in public, this is a special case. Although I know that some will be troubled by the sight of a gun, I’ve found that they are in a small minority. Those who approve of open carry are also a minority, although a larger one. The largest segment are neither alarmed nor admiring, but note the firearm as unusual in their experience. Open carry, for this segment, has the effect of normalization, and in my opinion this is a good thing.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      Well reasoned, rational and with an admirable sense of even handedness.

      1. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

        Thank you for your kind words.

  24. avatar bryan1980 says:

    There are pros and cons to both methods of carry depending on what situation you’re in. I don’t like hearing anyone besmirch either one, because everyone has their own reason to prefer a certain mode of carry. For most of my daily life, open carry would not be the best option. But, you’re dang right I’m going to open carry if I’m going to be in a sketchy neighborhood for any reason. In that situation, it keeps the undesirables from even approaching you (works great for panhandlers, too).

  25. avatar Frank says:

    So is OC a .40 better than CC a 9mm? What about OC .45 and CC .357 Sig? Should you OC revolvers and CC pistols?

    It is all up to the individual that is making the decision.

    I love the “gonna be the first” argument. If this was true, all cops would be knocked off as soon as they leave the station.

    My personal preference is comfortable carry, as in tool up and don’t worry about what some special snowflake thinks about it

    We have enough problems with the antis and demtards without ripping POTG a new one because they don’t carry the same way as I do.

  26. One day, open carry will be stylish.
    But somebody has to be the first to wear the bell bottoms and loud print wide collared shirts. And somebody else will say it looks bad.
    I remember when anyone carrying a cell phone was called a drug dealer.
    Yeah…I’m that old.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      I’m old enough to remember that drug dealers could be spotted by the three different pagers on their belt.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Stylish right now.

      One word: Shoulder Holster, cause where else are you gonna sling your gat while open ocean swimming (back from your firey boat sinking at sea).

      It’s cool baby.

      1. Great! Now I can’t get the sound of electric timbales and synthesized trumpets out of my head!

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          don’t fight it.

        2. I have to. Else I’d break out into a one man conga line.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          then you way better open c

  27. avatar Norincojay says:

    If someone wants to advertise they have a gun it should be their choice. I would like to have that choice even if I choose to CC. Democracy is about choices and debat not about laws telling people their “choice.”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Democracy is a scary proposition. Fortunately our form of government is not a democracy.

  28. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…since we need the tolerance of ”

    No.

    Simply no.

    My rights are not subject to anyone else’s ‘tolerance of. .’

  29. avatar stateisevil says:

    Hence the open carry ban in Florida. Many people of the gun in this state are actually anti gun like Fla boy.

  30. avatar Robert B. Steely says:

    My, nor anyone else’s rights, are incumbent on the tolerance of others.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “My, nor anyone else’s rights, are incumbent on the tolerance of others.”

      But those rights can be constrained by those who have the political power and will.

      If you have a particular right, universal, human, natural, but you cannot exercise it, what actually do you have?

  31. avatar Carl says:

    The police do it.

  32. avatar Palehorse says:

    I’ve open carried everyday since being of age to do so and nobody notices. I live in GA so it’s pretty normal. Do what you do and be judged by conduct.

  33. avatar Ing says:

    To each his own.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      To own his each.

  34. avatar Mark N. says:

    It really depends on the place where you are carrying. In California, it is illegal, so that’s the end of that. The hisotry of the ban is instructive. It started in the late 1960s, when the Black Panther Party began openly carrying (presumably loaded) firearms in public, which at the time was perfectly legal, but at the same time, in an era of great political upheaval, and in the context of the BPP’s animosity to the police, threatening. The BPP marched on Sacramento, entering the halls of the Legislature–which was also legal, but again perceived as threatening. Consequently, the Legislature passed and Ronnie Reagan signed, a bill banning the open carrying of loaded firearms. The practice of open carry essentially disappeared from the urban landscape.

    Beginning in about 2012, the Open carry movement began, where well-dressed, open carriers of loaded handguns began carrying in public places in various cities in California, most notably Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose. The soccer moms were appalled, and 911 calls of “man with gun!!!” invariably followed. Even when the citizenry were assured by the 911 centers that such acts were perfectly legal, large police responses invariably followed, and harassment of the open carriers ensued. Responding to this “crisis,” the Legislature banned the open carry of unloaded handguns in all urban areas, followed a year later by the ban on open carry of unloaded long guns.

    The foregoing is related to make the point that open carry of firearms may be “socially unacceptable” in some (liberal) jurisdictions, whether towns, cities or states. Ohter places, such as Arizona or Virginia or Vermont, not so much.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      The real point to be made there is that California is a fascist, statist hellhole that delights in dancing on the tatters it has made of the constitution.

  35. avatar Ron says:

    I personally conceal my weapon more often than carry it exposed. However, it should be entirely up to the individual. The people who are opposed to open carry, but “accept” conceal carry, are making the statement that you should HIDE the fact you are exercising a Right.

  36. avatar MLee says:

    Seems we’ve had this conversation before. While I ALWAYS carry, I carry concealed or at the very minimum mostly concealed as I carry IWB appendix. A holstered weapon partially obscured by an open coat, for example, is very hard to see as opposed to someone with an OWB hip holster. While I agree that is should be legal, I on the other hand tend to view the practice poorly.

    Yesterday I was at the store and noticed a younger aged male with his significant other enter the store just in front of me. He was open carrying on his hip. I have to say my immediate reaction and opinion was what a f–. I was carrying my river washed Sig P229 but nobody except superman could tell as I carry concealed. I see ZERO reason to open carry. If you can think of one good reason to open carry, I could counter with many more reasons NOT to open carry. I specifically mean open carrying during a persons daily outings and general activities.

    I’m short on the words to explain why, but I have a VERY poor opinion of most open carriers. It’s the same reaction I have for people who drive a bright red Corvette. It screams LOOK AT ME!!! Oh, the next door ladies BF drives a bright red Corvette and he really is a galactic douche bag and I have security videos to prove it.

    I’m sure there are those of you who will disagree with my opinion and as they say, we will have to agree to disagree because that’s my opinion. I think the average everyday Joe Blow walking around open carrying is firearm look like an imbecilic clown.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Yesterday I was at the store and noticed a younger aged male with his significant other enter the store just in front of me. He was open carrying on his hip. I have to say my immediate reaction and opinion was what a f–.

      That sounds like a personal problem.

      When I see someone else carrying, I think, “Hell, yeah!” and am happy to be in the presence of someone else exercising the right to bear arms. I might even say, “nice holster,” or “thanks,” if the opportunity presents.

      I was carrying my river washed Sig P229 but nobody except superman could tell as I carry concealed.

      I’m sensing a(n utterly unsurprising) superiority complex…

      I see ZERO reason to open carry. If you can think of one good reason to open carry, I could counter with many more reasons NOT to open carry. I specifically mean open carrying during a persons daily outings and general activities.

      Why is the reason behind anyone’s chosen method of carry the business of you, me, or anyone else? Nobody has to have any good reason whatsoever for choosing a particular method of carry.

      But, go right ahead: list your “many more reasons NOT to open carry.” Let’s hear them.

      I’m short on the words to explain why, but I have a VERY poor opinion of most open carriers.

      I’ll help: it’s because you think you are better than they are, and because you project your own biases and insecurities onto those who choose to open carry.

      It’s the same reaction I have for people who drive a bright red Corvette. It screams LOOK AT ME!!! Oh, the next door ladies BF drives a bright red Corvette and he really is a galactic douche bag and I have security videos to prove it.

      Unless you’re talking about someone parading around a BBQ gun, your analogy makes no sense. Openly carried firearms are generally nondescript and inconspicuous. They’re just… there. Not doing anything, and most certainly not screaming, “look at me!”

      (Side note to BBQ gun owners: sun’s out, guns out, baby. Make it look good! I’m sure you’re already used to the jealous reactions such as comparing your BBQ gun to a midlife-crisis sports car, so I trust you’ll pay no attention to them.)

      I’m sure there are those of you who will disagree with my opinion and as they say, we will have to agree to disagree because that’s my opinion.

      We do disagree, because your opinion is wrong.

      I think the average everyday Joe Blow walking around open carrying is firearm look like an imbecilic clown.

      See: yet more psychological projection from an anti-open carrier.

    2. avatar Louie Pheeters says:

      MLee, hate to break it to you like this, but your stated opinion makes you sound exactly like a “galactic douche bag”!

  37. avatar strych9 says:

    Overall, IMHO, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.

    Both OC and CC have pros and cons. However, I will note that whenever this argument flares up that there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims that get thrown around.

    Does OC make you a target? I’ve never seen anything to suggest that it does.

    CC is certainly a touch slower and presents more opportunities to snag your draw. Does that matter IRL? I’ve never seen data suggesting that it does.

    OC freaks out antis and damages “the cause”. Is that true? Again, no data I’ve seen suggests this. My anecdotal experience is that nearly no one notices OC and the vast majority that do notice don’t care/think you’re a cop but that’s not data, it’s anecdote.

    Really, as Vhyrus points out, antis gonna anti. It’s the fence sitters and FUDDs we should care about. The only thing I’ve seen that might “damage the cause” is the OCing of rifles and, IMHO, that’s only damaging when the carrier is “silly” and OC’s at the low ready. Slung, with hands off the rifle doesn’t seem to bother most folk.

    If there is anything to any of these claims I doubt the incidence is considerable. So, it’s up to the carrier to do what they’re comfortable with. Personally I roll with both OC and CC depending on what I’m doing, wearing and where I’m going. YMMV.

  38. avatar AutismOverTexas says:

    Open carrying isn’t about the tactical implications as it is the societal ones. People need to be normalized to guns not just so our Second Amendment is protected for future generations, but so we emotionally mature as a society and stop blaming objects for our larger underlying problems. My grandfather told me how he would carry his .22 rifle through town and to school in his semi-rural neighborhood so he could shoot squirrels for supper on the way back during the 50’s. Accidental shootings rarely happened, depressed teenagers rarely offed themselves with dad’s pistol, mass shootings were not nearly as frequent. That isn’t to say it was perfect back then, but this particular aspect of our cultured worked, and it’s a good thing to bring it back, or at least experiment with it in modern times. Open carrying is a step in that direction.

  39. avatar G says:

    Yes and no.

    I see its merits and utility if you live in a rural area, however …

    If you live in an area where open carry is unusual or frowned upon, then it is a bit silly in my opinion. Your just making an unwelcome and obnoxious political statement. Someone will probably call the cops on you, it will frighten people who do not know anything about guns (which is most people), and its not going to be met with understanding and a friendly “can you take that home or put a shirt over it”. Most people who see it are going to be thinking something along the lines of “get a load of G.I. jack ass over here, better watch out theres a new sheriff in town”. Especially if you live in a suburban area where theres relatively little to know crime and animal attacks are non existent.

    Theres a time and a place for everything a upper middle class suburbs and downtown in major cities arent the place for open carry in my opinion.

    >in b4 i live in a white suburb and theres robberies and bear attacks every day

  40. avatar Hans says:

    Sorry, Mr Fargo, I can not agree with you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Any carry is better than none at all.. I support open carry
    despite some liabilities; even for the Neo Black Panthers.

    As for the gun haters, they can screw themselves head first into the ground.
    I shall yield nothing to these Socshevikes.

  41. avatar Mosinfan says:

    Not carrying is Silly and Stupid. But you all know that.

  42. avatar kenneth says:

    “Open carry in the general public serves to inflame the anti-gunners (and realize there are more of them then there are of us”
    An incorrect basic assumption like this one invalidates the entire opinion, as the basic premise is faulty. If there are more antis than us, then why is carry expanding in almost all areas other than CA and NY/NJ? Why is an anti gun stance something that almost no politicians will admit to? And when they do they get soundly defeated? Why are more guns being sold each month-over-year than the months before, for years and years now?
    This author has bought into the antis spiel that there are so many of them and so few of us. Its BS, just like every other stat they spew. Plus I’m not sure if he has looked around lately, but its not as if the antis need an excuse to become inflamed. If there is NONE, they just make one up.

  43. avatar Jack says:

    Why give up your advantage?

    Open carry makes you a target in many ways. False accusations. Possibly be over powered. The list could go on.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Why give up your advantage?

      A criminal who chooses to move on to a different mark is an infinitely superior advantage over “surprising” a criminal with armed defense after he has already chosen to attempt his crime.

      Open carry makes you a target in many ways. False accusations. Possibly be over powered. The list could go on.

      And where are these things happening? Data, please.

  44. avatar Joe R. says:

    If it’s legal to carry a weapon, it is so for a reason that doesn’t include concealment for that same reason.

    I want open carry just so concealed carry isn’t pinned to any absolute, and I want open carry as a faster means to CONSTITUTIONALY CARRY, because, until then, we’re all violating each other’s rights. And I, for one, trust you, and I trust a felon with a gun more than an anti-gunner. Both are criminals, but only one is properly labeled, and you don’t get the whiny “common sense” pitch from them.

  45. avatar CZ Peasy says:

    While colored people might technically have the “right” to be in a white neighborhood, they really should keep to where they belong – out of sight. Otherwise they might trigger a backlash resulting in the extermination of half the colored population. Oh, wait. The democrat party already took care of that through abortion.

  46. avatar txGreg says:

    (re-posting my response to the FlaBoy’s original comment)

    I’m of mixed thoughts on this topic. I don’t think guns (and gun owners) should be stigmatized, but that horse is well and truly out of the barn. I’m not sure that open-carrying in the current environment is going to reverse that trend. However, I certainly don’t object to those who want to, and can, exercise that right.

    To add to your point though, I used to be a frequent patron of Half Price Books stores in the area. Although the 30.06 laws had been on the books for a long time, the owner of HPB (an avid anti-gun person) did not apparently know about it. Unfortunately, once Texas passed the open-carry legislation and the accompanying 30.07 language, she – like many other libs – raced to put both 30.07 AND 30.06 signage on their stores. Now, I either have to be rendered defenseless, or be in violation of the law in order to browse a HPB store. This situation only came about due to the introduction of open-carry for handguns pinging up against the irrational fears of a liberal store owner. And thus did the attempted restoration of our Rights end up further curtailing them instead.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      No one will ever know if you conceal carry past those signs. If by some miracle you get busted, the penalty is only a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200. You won’t even lose your LTC. My life is worth more than 200 bucks, just sayin.

  47. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    I prefer it to just be called carrying. Open, concealed, in a bag or case, aiwb, rifle racks in a truck. Just carry.

    Any way you do it, the legal presumption shouldn’t be that you are breaking the law doing so, unless you are carrying while breaking a law… Like murdering people or robbing a business.

    I shouldn’t be a gust of wind away from getting arrested when just walking around.

  48. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Today is a good day for a Fisking, it would seem.

    Sorry to voice what may be an unpopular opinion on this story, but I, for one, think open carry in general is stupid and silly.

    I, for one, think your opinion is stupid and silly. And I’m not the least bit sorry to voice my views on your opinion – of course, neither are you sorry to voice your opinion.

    But let us leave behind opinion, and discuss things far more relevant: facts, evidence, and rights.

    In terms of self-protection, as many others point out, it can be counter productive, when compared to concealed carry.

    That assertion remains utterly specious, and contrary to all available, existing evidence.

    For one: concealed carry is net neutral in terms of self-protection. As a method of carry, it neither helps nor hinders. (Though some would argue that carrying concealed actually hinders the draw when needing to use the carried firearm, making concealed carry a net negative. I don’t think enough evidence to support that claim, and in my opinion only, sufficient training and practice can negate any adverse impact on the draw caused by a concealed firearm.)

    For another: most people are not observant enough to notice even a carried firearm. Criminals intent on committing a crime on a chosen victim will typically exhibit “tunnel vision”, causing them not to notice bystanders (or what those bystanders may be carrying).

    And for another: open carry is a net positive in terms of self-protection. By and large, criminals fear armed citizens (i.e. armed would-be victims), and if they do notice an openly carried firearm, are more likely to seek out an easier mark.

    And most importantly: if open carry adversely impacted self-protection, then there would be ample evidence by now of that adverse impact. There are millions of people who carry openly. Where are the data? (Hint: they’re not there.)

    I am certainly not against concealed carry of firearms. I have a concealed carry permit (required in my state) and always carry, usually ignoring signs, etc to the contrary, including my doctor’s office.

    Well, I suppose we should be thankful that you support at least some form of carry.

    I do open carry on the farm and in the woods, but that’s different than open carry in the general public. Open carry in the general public serves to inflame the anti-gunners…

    So what? Our mere existence inflames anti-gunners. I stopped long ago caring about offending the delicate sensibilities of the perpetually offended.

    …(and realize there are more of them then there are of us…just look up the city population vs. the rural population, opinions of the younger generations, etc..)…

    Even if you were right (and there is no evidence that you are), the exercise of rights isn’t subject to the whims of democracy. (Also, if our forefathers had followed your line of thinking, we would still be under the British crown.)

    Given the steady advancement of the protection of RKBA over the past 20-30 years, I would argue that there are obviously more of us than there are of them. We keep winning at the polls, and in the legislatures.

    …and, I think, it’s just a form of exhibitionism.

    Ah, yes, there it is: the usual exhibition of psychological projection by the typical anti-open carry Fudd.

    Protip: just because you would feel like an exhibitionist by carrying openly does not mean that any other person who chooses to carry openly does so as a form of exhibitionism.

    In the long run, open carry is not supporting our rights as much as it is counterproductive to continuing our rights…

    And concealed carry does support our rights? If so: how?

    By contrast, the millions of people who carry openly, daily, while going about their affairs, not committing any crimes, not bothering anyone – they are the ones doing the yeoman’s work at normalizing the carry of firearms, and desensitizing the vast, oblivious, uncaring majority to the presence of firearms carried by normal, law-abiding people.

    …since we need the tolerance of the vast majority of the non-gun-interested population’s continued ignoring and nonsupport of the anti-gunners efforts.

    So, how, in your opinion, do we support and further our rights?

    As with self-protection, concealed carry is net neutral on the advancement of our rights, because concealed means concealed. The whole point of carrying concealed is that the carried firearm is concealed. So, nobody but the carrier knows it’s there. Criminals don’t know it’s there. Hoplophobes don’t know it’s there. The vast, oblivious, uncaring majority don’t know it’s there.

    “In your face” open carry in places where they are with their kids and family doesn’t help us in the long run.

    More FUD from an anti-open carry Fudd.

    Open carry isn’t “in your face”. And day-by-day, opportunity-by-opportunity demonstration of the inherently law-abiding nature of people who choose to carry firearms is the absolute best thing to do in places where there are kids and family.

    In the long run, cowering and hiding are what do not help us. When we acquiesce to anti-gunner fascists, we yield the playing field, the game rules, and the cultural norms to them.

    How has that worked out for us, so far?

    1. avatar Louie Pheeters says:

      ???

  49. avatar The Brig says:

    Put me down for concealed over open. Not because I don’t want to offend anyone, because I’m at the point in my life where I give not a rat’s ass about hurt feelings or trodden toes, but because it attracts too much attention. It gets the snowflakes all worked up and they’ll needlessly call 911, of course, but I’m more concerned with thugs.

    If a thug with criminal intent happens to see me carrying openly, he’ll do one of two things: leave or target me first. When I’m out in the world, I’m confident in my ability to spot shady characters or circumstances, but there is always that chance I missed one, and that’s the one I’m worried about. If he sees me first and I’m carrying concealed, he’ll look the other way and go do whatever it is he’s doing, which gives me a better opportunity to respond in whatever manner I can. I prefer not to identify myself to thugs as a threat to their way of life; look what happens to cops all too often.

    I live in an open carry state (open carry for now) and I have the option to carry either way since I have a permit. I think concealed is a wiser choice, but your mileage will vary. If you want to carry openly, that’s your business, and if it works for you, great, but I’m making my call and sticking with it.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Where are all the open carriers being targeted by thugs? With the prevalence of open carry, if that were a legitimate concern, there would be data to support the assertion. So: where are the data?

    2. avatar ACP_arms says:

      If a cop is killed by a thug it’s likely NOT because they are OC-ing. Also, how often do cops get killed for OC-ing, exactly?

      1. avatar Frank says:

        I would think cops are not as likely to be targeted for OC because criminals would expect them to be trained in handgun retention and have decent situational awareness. Not to mention if the attempt fails, the perp knows a cop is going to pursue them and arrest them for a bad stack of charges. That’s if they don’t get shot for trying. Most cops would likely not be perceived as an ‘easy mark’.

        I’ve been in line cops at fast food places on a couple of occasions and they were pretty consistent about looking around and repositioning themselves slightly to be sure nobody got too close to their personal space.

      2. avatar The Brig says:

        ACP Arms: <i?If a cop is killed by a thug it’s likely NOT because they are OC-ing. Also, how often do cops get killed for OC-ing, exactly?
        Did I say they were being killed for OC? No. That’s just a case of you not reading or being able to understand what you read. I said I didn’t want to identify myself to thugs. Cops identify themselves (you know, with badges and uniforms and things) and thus make themselves a target. Go back and try again.

        Chip Bennett: Where are all the open carriers being targeted by thugs? With the prevalence of open carry, if that were a legitimate concern, there would be data to support the assertion. So: where are the data?
        What is a “legitimate concern” in your eyes? For me, a legitimate concern is something that might happen. Evidently for you, something legitimate is something that has already happened. What a wonderful way to be unprepared for anything. But I prefer to be proactive and aware of things that might happen. And how can you provide data for a possible scenario? Because something has not happened to you or because you are unwilling to entertain the notion that such a situation might come to be, does that mean it doesn’t, can’t, and won’t happen? You’re quite the fool if you think like that, and hopefully you’ll survive an unexpected situation you didn’t prepare for so I can laugh at you.

        But here: https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrTccV0gUBZVZkAp_wnnIlQ;_ylc=X1MDMTM1MTE5NTY4NwRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1tb3ppbGxhLTAwMQRncHJpZAM1R1ZhaTJqalE3aUpDdkRlamFpSXlBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDMARxc3RybAM0MwRxdWVyeQNvcGVuJTIwY2FycnklMjB0YXJnZXRlZCUyMGZvciUyMGd1biUyMHRoZWZ0BHRfc3RtcAMxNDk3Mzk5Njky?p=open+carry+targeted+for+gun+theft&fr2=sb-top&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

        You want to play stupid? Go right ahead. Some people have been targeted for robbery when they’re carrying. Looks like I’m correct in being prepared and you appear to have been talking out the wrong side of your face.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          What is a “legitimate concern” in your eyes? For me, a legitimate concern is something that might happen. Evidently for you, something legitimate is something that has already happened.

          A legitimate concern is, minimally, something with high severity that has a reasonable probability of occurrence. That’s why I keep asking for the data on occurrence of people being targeted specifically because of open carry. There are millions of people carrying openly. Where are the data on such people being targeted? To estimate the risk of that harm occurring in the future, you must look at how often it is currently happening, or how often it has happened historically. That’s how risk analysis works.

          What a wonderful way to be unprepared for anything. But I prefer to be proactive and aware of things that might happen.

          Then you would be classified as someone who is highly risk-averse. That’s fine, but it is not how most people choose to live their lives. You cannot mitigate every risk. Those risks with a very low probability of occurrence (such as being targeted specifically because of open carry) do not deserve the same degree of risk management.

          And how can you provide data for a possible scenario? Because something has not happened to you or because you are unwilling to entertain the notion that such a situation might come to be, does that mean it doesn’t, can’t, and won’t happen?

          There are literally millions of people who carry openly, on a daily basis. If there were a risk of such people being targeted specifically because of open carry, then the data would be there.

          You’re quite the fool if you think like that, and hopefully you’ll survive an unexpected situation you didn’t prepare for so I can laugh at you.

          Why am I not surprised that your argumentation and tone have shifted toward emulating those of the anti-gunners?

          But here: [Some Yahoo Search link]

          What does a Yahoo search link prove? That tactic fails two basic premises:

          1. Correlation does not prove causation
          2. The plural of anecdote is not data

          You want to play stupid? Go right ahead. Some people have been targeted for robbery when they’re carrying.

          Sure, you can find people who were carrying openly, who were targeted for some kind of crime. But there is almost never any evidence that such person was targeted because of an openly carried firearm. (Most tend to boil down to either a) piss-poor situational awareness, or b) criminal activity.) And even if a handful of such stories proved to be cases of people being targeted because of open carry, they are still statistically irrelevant, when compared to the millions of people carrying openly, on a daily basis.

          Looks like I’m correct in being prepared and you appear to have been talking out the wrong side of your face.

          There is an order of magnitude more concealed carriers (10-15 million) than there are open carriers.

          There are also anywhere from 200,000 to 2 million defensive gun uses every year. What are the odds that statistically near 100% of those DGUs involve a concealed carrier (as opposed to an open carrier), discounting home-based DGUs?

          That represents a hell of a lot of concealed carriers who get targeted for crimes, such that they are forced to use their firearms in self-defense. Sure (and thankfully), they – like you – are prepared to defend themselves. But I have to wonder: how many open carriers never have to be counted in the DGU statistics, because they don’t get targeted for crimes, specifically because they are carrying openly.

          Whichever side of my face I’m talking out of appears to be aligned with the other side of my face, but thanks for your concern.

  50. avatar former water walker says:

    I truly wish I could open carry in Illinois. I see it occasionally a mile away in Indiana and…NOTHING HAPPENS. Most folks likely think you’re a cop or guard. Duh. Lighten up cupcake(s)…

    1. avatar MLee says:

      Oh, it sounds like you want people to think you are a cop or a guard. Buy a red Corvette also.
      LOOK AT ME!!!

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Still projecting, I see.

        FWW didn’t say anything at all about wanting people to think that he’s a police officer or a guard. Rather, he said that the worst that happens here in Indiana is that someone might mistake you for a police officer or a guard.

  51. avatar Anonymous says:

    Is Open Carry Stupid and Silly?

    Did you ask a cop? Someone should ask them.

  52. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Meh. Don’t care either way in general. Depends on the person carrying.

    I do have issues with people carrying rifles at port arms or low ready.

    When I see that, I tend to get ready to draw and fire.

    Maybe just me and may not be constitutionally-correct but it’s an issue for me.

    YMMV.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      This is my singular issue with OC as well.

      A rifle, slung with your hands off of it is like a pistol in a holster. Resting your hands or forearms on the rifle, on say the stock, is also acceptable.

      It is however, discourteous to wander around in public with your hands on the rifle in a manner that suggests you’re ready to use it immediately. That is, IMHO, the same thing as unholstering your pistol and strolling down the street gat in hand.

      I’m not saying it should be illegal, but the folks that do it should learn some social graces. You’re not on patrol in Afghanistan or Iraq. Hajis, terrorists, ninjas, crackraptors, methasaruses, or run of the mill BG’s are not going to ambush you in numbers. You have no reason to do this other than to look operator as fuck and it makes a lot of people (myself included) wonder what exactly you’re up to when you’re acting like you’re advancing to contact/expecting an ambush in a situation where you’re clearly not.

      Keep yo hands off the damn rifle. That’s exactly what the sling is for, to keep your hands free for other tasks. If you can’t keep your hands off the rifle because it’s uncomfortable then you need a better sling.

  53. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

    If you have a right to do something, but you’re afraid to do it because it might piss someone off, what use is the right?

  54. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Open carry has been protected by the Kentucky State Constitution for over 200 years. Never been a problem. Back at Christmas I even noticed open carry in the local mall. No body said a word. I see open carry about 1/3rd of the time I go to a Wal Mart. Head to the farm store and you will see open carry nearly 100% of the time. Which is rather funny since they require management to walk a firearms purchase out of the store, even if you have one on your hip. They will laugh about it, but it is what has to happen for them to keep their jobs.

  55. avatar Phil Twiss says:

    Open / Concealed, its all the same – Its d@mn stupid, if you are carrying to make a political statement… Both the gun garbing thief and the hysterical left will have more then enough ammo to take you out and the cause as a whole… Vote, be active for the 2nd, Vote, be active against the hysterical left, Vote… Carry and Carry Often for the only reason to carry

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Bovine excrement.

      Carry – openly or concealed – for whatever lawful purpose you desire.

  56. avatar Ralph says:

    I, for one, think FlaBoy’s criticism of open carry in general is stupid and silly.

  57. avatar Michael says:

    I live in Alaska where open and concealed carry are permitted by right. I see a lot of people open carrying in the smaller communities and much less so in Anchorage (the largest city). During fishing season, in addition to handguns in chest packs, there are a lot of slung shotguns and rifles for bear defense. Firearms are the norm in most of Alaska. I have seen the cops in Anchorage watch and follow people with openly carried guns and heard a number of people make unfavorable comments about open carry (lots of liberals in Anchorage and more showing up all the time).

    I am fine with both, but prefer to conceal carry. I like to think it gives me a very small element of surprise (if a bad guy decides to do something, he definitely has the element of surprise in most situations).

  58. avatar Darkman says:

    Open carry or concealed carry is a very personal thing. I conceal carry for 1 simple reason. The element of surprise. Let’s say you are in the local mini mart grabbing a quick snack of paying for gas. Some banger comes strolling in with the intent to rob the place. If they see a gun they may turn around and pick a new spot or new time. On the other hand they decide to just shoot you and finish business. Remember they have the element of surprise if you give yours up.

  59. avatar Ronster says:

    For me it’s a tactical decision. I carry concealed, figuring if some idiot shows up where I’m at, and starts shooting people…maybe they won’t shoot me first and I can stop them. Of course, you might say, if they saw me wearing it, they might not shoot at all, but who knows.

  60. avatar Justin says:

    All I know is the lady pictured is being foolish. The beagle needs to be on the offhand. She wouldn’t be Able to draw aim her pistol bea user that beagle would have smelled something and been pulling the leash taunt in some random direction.

  61. avatar Micah says:

    After perusing all the comments, I’ve noticed a lot compare the right to open carry with first amendment rights. I think it’s a valid comparison. We have (or at least should have) the right to open carry in public in front of a bunch of kids, even if it offends them and/or their parents. We also have (or should have) the right to use vulgar and profane language in front of those same kids. In both of those examples, I think a person who acts that way is well within his or her rights, but I also think they’re being stupid and silly. So… I agree with the original poster that sparked this question.

  62. avatar Grumpyoldtimer says:

    This was a hoot. If one changed just a few words here and there one would think it was gunners vs antis in the above posts. So, here’s my grumpy two cents.
    Who the hell are YOU to tell ME which is better for ME. You can do what you like/want/believe. But, the minute you cross the line and decide for ME, you sound just like the antis. Think about it. They have decided I/YOU/WE should not be allowed to carry a gun and will do what they can to use the violence of the law to enforce their opinions on us.
    Remember, we stand for the individual’s right to decide and should not tell others how they must think/speak/act. If you don’t believe that then you are just an anti in gunner clothing.
    Have a grumpy day! 😉

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Who the hell are YOU to tell ME which is better for ME.”

      Why claim that differing opinions, discussions of pro/con, related experiences are equivalent to telling you what to do? And just because someone here writes, “You better do as I do, or you are a blithering idiot needing to be erased.”, why even give that a second thought?

      Separate the wheat from the chaff. Always re-evaluate your preconceptions. Analyze and learn. Discard the BS.

  63. avatar BillCa says:

    No, point NOT taken.

    I’ll go along with the idea that *gratuitously* open carrying in public and purposely trying to show everybody you’re wearing a pistol is pretty stupid. I no more want to see that than to see a couple of yahoos carrying rifles or shotguns with them. Worse yet is the imbecile who OCs with a cheap holster that affords little retention safety from someone grabbing it. I want to slap them with a well buttered pancake.

    But OC does have its place. Those who own and/or live on farms or other rural property may elect to OC without issue. But there are times when a trip to their local town is required or just “down the road a piece” for lumber or hardware. Or maybe you’re just hopping over to help someone else and stop for fuel or grab a bite along the way. This is fairly common in the southwest and I’m sure in other rural states. And we all know every time you handle a gun it increases the odds of a mistake.

    And let’s face it. Summer’s about here. When the mercury is pushing 90° in the shade it’s not always easy to conceal or do so completely, especially if your tool of choice isn’t a compromise compact gun. Different body shapes and physical statures can’t always allow you to cover up in places like Phoenix or Dallas in mid-summer.

    In the long view, it’s up to you to act responsibly. We know people with permits do so to a very high degree. We should insist everyone who carries, openly or concealed, does likewise.

  64. avatar Frank says:

    Unless you are confident that you have the physical ability and weapon retention skill set to defend your gun should it attract the attention of a criminal who wants it, you are generally better off concealing it.

    The girl in this photo looks like an easy mark. She has her gun hand on the leash. How hard would it be to casually enter her personal space with the right conversation starter and then drop her with a sucker punch?

    1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

      I’d like to casually enter her personal space with the right conversation starter… but I prefer to ‘disarm’ her using my wit and charm. 🙂

      “Hey, I know – let’s walk our dogs over to my place where they can run free, then you show me your piece and I’ll show you mine!”

  65. avatar RetMSgt in Pa. says:

    Out here in Western Pennsylvania I routinely open carry. At my age I don’t care what other people think, or don’t think. My handgun of choice is big, heavy, clunky and a bit hard to conceal. I’ve been to supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants and Wally Worlds. Did anyone notice that I was OCing? Not that I’m aware of. Maybe they did, and just didn’t care; it’s not like I look like an Urban Yute or some other ne’er do well. One supermarket I frequent does indeed have a gunbuster sign at its entrances (rare indeed), so for them my shirt comes out of my pants and covers my handgun – out of sight, out of mind.

    Been OCing for over five years now, and I’ve yet to see anyone call the police, leave a puddle on the floor, or give me the stinkeye. I’m comfortable with OCing. If someone isn’t, that’s not my problem.

  66. avatar fteter says:

    I don’t open carry in public. That’s because I’m concerned that open carry may be screaming to a group of bad guys “shoot me first”. I’m also concerned about an unintended intimidation factor, especially for parents with young children.
    But that’s a personal choice on my part. And I do OC around the house and while stomping around in the woods.

    From a political and social perspective, I’m a supporter of open carry…constitutional open carry at that. It should be an individual right of every responsible citizen, not a matter of government regulation, to make the choice between OC, CC, or no carry at all.

  67. avatar strych9 says:

    Hmmm… This article has been rattling around in my head all day. I need to go to the grocery store too.

    Fuck it, I’m going to OC just because of this article! *Spends 10 minutes looking for that one holster*.

  68. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The best open carry is done in groups. You don’t have to be in a racially mixed group, but it helps.
    You don’t have to have women in your group. But it helps.
    I open carry with and without my wife. And I always push a shopping cart when I’m in the store.
    As a black open carry advocate I think you need to be polite in public. Dropping F bombs and open carrying a gun wins no friends.

    Im sure the First amendment advocates disagree.

  69. avatar Matt in Co says:

    Never mind the political reasons, it’s tactically unsound…
    https://youtu.be/fjoF8b5XVow

  70. avatar Isaac says:

    I’ve said it before and I find myself repeating myself, if you are going to open carry:
    1. Don’t be stupid! You represent (in ascending order of importance according to me) you, all gun owners, and my wife/me… ACT LIKE IT!
    2. Look respectable, business casual is good… cut off jeans (particularly lady’s with the jeans cut off shorter than the pocket) and a greasy torn up tshirt missing the sleeves, bad!
    3. Get an actual decent retention holster, uncle mikes house of third world ballistic nylon AIN’T GONNA KUT IT numb nuts! Then practice with it!
    4. Pay attention to what is going on around you.

  71. avatar Keith M says:

    With open carry, you loose the element of surprise and become first target.

  72. avatar Keith M says:

    Inch by inch and state by state, we must do everything within our power to regain our Constitutional Rights that were taken away over 150+ years ago after the Civil War. There’s no better time than the present to make a firm stance for our inalienable rights.

    If only 2% of the population of Texas signed this petition it would have over 550,000 signatures.
    If every gun owner in Texas signed this petition it would have almost 10 million signatures.

    It’s pathetic and applauding that less that 1% of the populous of the state of Texas has made a stance for their inalienable Constitutional Rights when they don’t even have to get up out of their chair in front of their keyboard and take less than a minute of their time to do so.

    The opportunity is prime. Sign or forever whine.
    https://www.change.org/p/governor-abbott-convene-a-special-session-for-constitutional-carry

  73. avatar adverse4 says:

    The dog looks like it’s ready to duck if she draws fire.

  74. avatar Mike says:

    One point this article fails to address is the increased complications that may arise due to openly carrying a firearm; more than the social aspect. i.e. if someone would try to take it from you, you’d better be able to retain it.

  75. avatar Open carry is speech says:

    Open carry is more about our first amendment protections than it is the 2nd. Yes a person may have a slight tactical advantage by keeping a firearm hidden from view, but open carry serves to normalize the sight of guns in the general public which is a good thing for our cause (so long as it is done in a non aggressive and non inflammatory way.). <—— Side note, only when I comment on this site does the auto correct force me to punctuate incorrectly. Long story short if you are a well kept, clean cut individual who appears to fit in with the community you live, then please open carry. Yes it will alarm some, but to the people on the fence (the ones who matter) it will help associate the lack of risk and prop up what the rest of us already know is true. That it isn't dangerous, and normal everyday people carry guns.

  76. avatar rt66paul says:

    It shold be carry – not open or concealed. If you feel better carrying openly, so be it. Concealed carry is safer, you won’t have someone in a crowd try to jerk it out of the holster, but out away from crowds, open is more comfortable. Open or concealed, it should be the same.

  77. avatar Angry D says:

    Did anyone ask for this opinion? I don’t recall asking for this opinion.

    Personally, I only open carry when I’m working on the range as an RSO, and even though I more or less agree with this, how and what and where you carry is your own friggin’ business. I don’t care what magazine you write for or who thinks you’re an “expert”, once you start telling someone ELSE what they should or shouldn’t do, you’re crossing a line.

    Liberals do that. Liberals are convinced that their opinions are the only ones that matter. Liberals write articles about how Americans exercising their rights are “stupid and silly.”

    Congratulations, FlaBoy– you’re just like a liberal.

  78. avatar Sparky in WI says:

    To me open or concealed is your personal choice. I will not call one or the other bad versus good. Two things though. If you open carry I would strongly “suggest” a retention holster, right tool for the job basically. A friend open carries his nice 357 in a non-retention holster but frankly is rarely paying any attention to what is going on around him. Too busy on his iphone with work or personal things. While not a cure of being inattentive, such holster makes it more difficult for your firearm to be taken from you.

    Which leads to point two. If you carry (or do not carry too) no matter how, do not be in condition white. Try to be in condition yellow, relaxed paranoid as another friend calls it with your head on a swivel and paying attention to what is going on around you. Just this past Sat walking with 3 other friends in a nearby larger town we crossed the street because I saw 2 dudes that to me looked like problems waiting to happen. Their look towards us and demeanor gave me a knot so across the street we went. Maybe they were fine and I was being over cautious but other than a bit more of a walk there was no harm.

    The one friend was surprised because she asked me are you not armed so then if yes why are we doing this. So we had a great discussion on how being armed does not make you superman or woman. And being armed does not mean you should enter an area or situation that seems wrong or uncomfortable.

  79. avatar Trevor says:

    Ask yourself why off duty Police, FBI, CIA, DEA, US Marshals, etc ALL conceal when out of uniform? (There are multiple GOOD sound reasons why)
    I’ve had a concealed carry lic for 20 yrs. Open carry is all about intimidating, and looking tough. Some guys need that. 99% of open carry guys look insecure and like they got picked on in school to me.
    It’s definitely not about being safer or more secure. Otherwise law enforcement would do it.

  80. avatar BOBO says:

    If you carry,what you carry,how you carry is a personal free choice.For myself I’ll stay gray and keep my advantage hidden. I really don’t care if,what or how anyone else does anything.

  81. avatar Steve says:

    Do you know why police open carry? Accessibility and quick draw if required.
    Everyone has an opinion on everything, no matter. If you want to only carry concealed, more power to you. If you choose to carry open, more power to you. The public needs to be educated, not snowballed on personal protection. There is so much political correctness in the country that the stench is becoming unbearable. Stick up for your rights and stop groveling in the PC muck and mire.

    1. avatar BOBO says:

      You hit the nail on the head.

    2. avatar Scrote McGee says:

      Police open carry, because it is a projection of authority. A uniformed officer is a visible deterrent, and a pistol on the hip is part of that. Non uniformed officers usually wear a cover garment.

  82. avatar Wendish says:

    Open Carry will just piss the anti gunners off more and it’s probably not the best strategic way to carry a gun anyway. The asswipe democrats will be in charge again some day and keeping guns out of their face probably won’t earn us any points but sticking guns in their face definitely won’t.

    1. avatar BOBO says:

      To all dems molon labe

  83. avatar Scrote McGee says:

    If you are open carrying and not in the back country, or getting paid for it, you are a dummy.

  84. Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution. Concealed carry is not a 2A right, it can be banned.

    “In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right…Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251…” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

    “But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws — prohibitions on concealed weapons…” Heller dissent at 2851

    “We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) at 3050.

    “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282.

    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

    1. avatar Billca says:

      Charles, I agree that early jurisprudence allowed for arms to be openly carried and concealed carry was considered uncouth or cause for suspicion. All I’ve read supports that notion.

      However, while earlier SCOTUS decisions showed little concern about laws regulating concealed carry, I believe that was because open carried arms were the norm. As other constitutional lawyers and scholars have pointed out, in the modern era, the right to carry outside one’s home was heavily suppressed for many years. The consensus today seems to be that at least ONE form of carry must be allowed by the state, either openly or concealed. The states can regulate that for themselves.

      The right is to bear arms, however the manner in which they may be borne isn’t specified. We presume openly carried is what the founders meant because they did so themselves, but that could also be a result of the rather large size of handguns that didn’t lend themselves to being concealed. What do you think Madison or Franklin would have thought of a 5-shot revolver half the size of their flintlocks? I think Franklin would have been delighted that it was small enough to hide on his person.

      I think we need to focus on the donut and quibbling about open or concealed is looking at the donut hole. It’s more important that there IS a right to carry on your person without obtaining a permission slip to do so. How your state or mine makes it open or concealed is mostly moot.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        “The consensus today seems to be that at least ONE form of carry must be allowed by the state, either openly or concealed. The states can regulate that for themselves. ”

        And that very principle is an infringement, or at least an endorsement of it, because for concealed carry states come up with all sorts of reasons to exclude people even from “shall issue” laws — because there are qualifications for those to whom that “shall” applies. Just as an example, I know a guy who is a misdemeanor registered sex offender because he took a leak in the woods where he happened to be visible to some minors. Thanks to Oregon’s participation in the modern version of the Salem witch trial phenomenon, he can’t get a concealed license — but if he open carries he’s subject to harassment from any bored LEO who happens by. So he’s not allowed that “permission slip”, and is open game for harassment by cop without it.

        1. avatar Billca says:

          >”And that very principle is an infringement, or at least an endorsement of it, because for concealed carry states come up with all sorts of reasons to exclude people even from “shall issue” laws — because there are qualifications for those to whom that “shall” applies.”

          Perhaps I wasn’t clear or you didn’t read to the last paragraph where I said the important part is we HAVE the right to carry that doesn’t require a government permission slip (permit). Whether State A makes that open carry and State B makes it concealed carry is up to them.

          Reading some early court decisions it’s clear that courts upheld the carrying of arms openly, but also upheld prohibitions on concealed carry by states and towns. So “right out of the gate” the right DID have some limitations, driven by the then-current moral belief that hiding your gun was “unmanly” or cowardly (although that never seemed to be a factor for women). In the 21st Century I’ve heard arguments on both sides of the issue as to which manner is “more” appropriate. Which is best? Beats the heck out of me, Roy. I can think of pros & cons for each method.

  85. avatar Roymond says:

    “TTAG commentator FlaBoy (not shown)”

    I thought he must be the dog, since he has consented to be leashed by the government and is proud of it.

    Concealed carry is surrender to the police state. If I want to carry concealed, I have to not only let them know I have a weapon, I have to submit to treatment like a felon to be allowed to carry it, and to that privilege being revoked at the whim of a sheriff who decides to declare I no longer measure up — and then go to court, at my expense, to re-establish that I qualify for the “shall issue” standard.

    “Shall not be infringed” means no restrictions, barriers, qualifications, limitations, or burdens of any sort. Carrying concealed is actually my right, but if they’re going to treat me like a criminal in order to allow me to not be penalized for exercising that right, I will flee from endorsing their statist rejection of the foundation of this Republic by not participating.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Shall not be infringed” means no restrictions, barriers, qualifications, limitations, or burdens of any sort.

      Absolutism is in no part of the constitution, or anywhere else in this life.

  86. avatar EstelleX says:

    Hello blogger i see you don’t monetize your site. You can earn extra money easily,
    search on youtube for: how to earn selling articles

Write a Comment

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

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