Sgt Patrick Hayes saw the Jerry Miculek video on open carry protocol. He couldn’t agree more:

There have been a number of news stories recently concerning folks running around with long guns. Most were from Texas where such carry is legal and open handgun carry is not. I live in Georgia, a state with very good gun laws. Open carry of long guns is legal and open or concealed carry of handguns is legal with a carry permit. In 20 years as a law enforcement officer, other than hunters during hunting season, I have never seen anyone carry a long gun just to do it. This seems to be an attention-getting tactic that makes the public very uncomfortable. It causes negative feelings about gun owners with the voting public . . .

If the gun is slung on the shoulder it’s just a display, right or wrong. What concerns me: the owner carrying his firearm at port arms or low ready. These folks are just asking for a confrontation with cops or armed citizens. Cops don’t walk around all day with a gun in their hand or a rifle at low ready. If you see me with my gun unholsterd, there is a reason.

It’s common sense folks! If I see a man walking into a Walmart with an M4 at low ready I am going to stop him. His manner of carry presents as an immediate threat. That is just how it is.  I cannot ignore him just because he might be exercising his rights. I don’t know his intent and until his hand comes off that pistol grip I don’t care. He will be at gunpoint. He doesn’t comply, he gets shot.

Please . . . stop doing this. The armed citizen might not even give you a chance to stop. Anyone can articulate the threat of a rifle in hand with your finger millimeters from the trigger. It’s no different than doing the same with a hangun in your hand. Most of you would never walk into a store with a handgun in your hand. Why would you do it with a rifle?

Leave the rifle at home or in your car. Carry a handgun, open or concealed. We don’t need the bad press and we certainly don’t want two gun owners shooting each other because one wanted to act irresponsibly.

Recommended For You

335 Responses to Open Carry of Long Arms – A Law Enforcement Perspective

  1. If you absolutely must do these demonstrations, use a behind the back carry so you aren’t holding the damn thing. This is common sense.

  2. If a LEO is aiming his/her firearm at you, are you sufficiently “in immediate fear of your life” such that you may then reasonably use deadly force to defend yourself against the LEO? Of course depending on other facts, the prosecutor of the armed citizen would not want me on the jury.

    But to be clear, I’m not a proponent of open carry of long-arms for expressive purposes only. Also, I did not (and would not have) run out to the Cliven Bundy ranch in Nevada earlier this year.

    • “If a LEO is aiming his/her firearm at you, are you sufficiently “in immediate fear of your life” such that you may then reasonably use deadly force to defend yourself against the LEO?”

      Seriously???

      • Yes, seriously. A citizen cannot preemptively (before an actual threat) aim a firearm at someone. A LEO should not either.

        • A gun in a ready position is a threat. If you’re just peacefully carrying (for whatever reason), there is no reason to carry like that.

        • LEOs are authorized to use force in ways that civilians are not, and it pretty much has to be that way. It’s a necessary component of powers to arrest. That doesn’t mean they can shoot first and ask questions later – the use of deadly force in defense of themselves pretty closely matches the civilian criteria – but short of shooting, it’s a different ballgame.

        • generally most state laws say or imply that the citizen is obligated to obey reasonable police requests to ensure officer safety.

          That usually means you may NOT resist physical force applied by an officer. If they do a rodney king while you are not resisting, THEN you MIGHT make a case for self defense, after you have not resisted. Not complying with an officers request is never the prudent and wise thing to do.

          To justify a SD shooting, all the officer would have to prove was that the officer thought that the suspect was armed and making a move to bring a weapon to bear against him.

          Even if the case went to the Grand Jury, which is composed of ordinary citizens, not folks who are knowledgeable about weapons, and sympathetic to the cause. Who would you think the jury would agree with.

          Cops are not paid enough to take extraordinary risks with their safety, and the public doesnt expect them to push their luck.

          I do wish some folks would walk in LEO’s footsteps for a couple of shifts before they make all of these pronouncements.

      • Society gives police limited additional authority as a tool because it is their charge to stop and investigate crimes. In exchange they have to go through extensive (and invasive) background investigations, training, and continual review. If you decide you want to make a point by ‘defending yourself’ from a police officer, you can expect to be killed or spend the rest of your life in jail (there are very few exceptions to this general rule). If you don’t like that you should probably move to a place where there is no color of law.

    • I really shouldn’t even dignify that with a response. But suffice it to say, some incidents to the contrary notwithstanding, the police are still far, far from deserving the same calculus we use with rapists and armed robbers. By far, your most reasonable, safest course of action is still to cooperate.

    • I’m not going to say you’re an idiot, naive, but not an idiot. I think you’d find that in all 50 states (and probably anywhere in the world), a uniformed LEO is going to be assumed the “good guy” for legal purposes, and if you’re dumb enough to raise your weapon at them “in defense”, and you survive that mistaken thought, you will be the defendant in the subsequent criminal trial. Just saying. The only gray area would be an undercover (how do you really know they are an undercover cop? people are pretending to be cops all over these days, and your life is potentially at stake), but your chances still aren’t much better. Plus if an undercover blows his cover to pull on you, there was probably a good reason why he did so – you did something you shouldn’t be doing.

  3. “Carry a handgun, open or concealed.” And, if you are a Texan, go to jail.

    Sgt. Hayes, like an incredible number of people on this blog, does not get it. In Texas, YOU CANNOT LEGALLY OPEN CARRY A HANDGUN.

    While I disagree with the tactic of “protesting” open handgun carry laws by openly carrying long guns, at least I get the idea that Texans cannot openly carry handguns. Maybe they should move here to Virginia, where open carry of anything is legal. (JK about moving)

      • But not open carry, which is what the open carry activists are trying to change. They’re attempting to show the absurdity of being able to openly carry rifles, but having to conceal pistols. Sadly, a bunch of poorly-dressed out-of-shape guys carrying rifles at low ready in a Jack In The Box are not the way to get this message across and get open carry legalized.

        • What is the point of open carry when you can have conceal carry? Why advertise you are carrying a gun to begin with?

        • Larry, why be forced to conceal? It could be a comfort issue, or a convenience issue. Tell me, how many people walk around with a gun on their hip in states where open carry is allowed? Would Texas be any different? I sincerely doubt that people will suddenly openly wear a pistol everywhere they go – but having the option of carrying without having to hide it – or carrying a full-sized pistol instead of a more easily concealed one – seems like a reasonable idea, doesn’t it? Or do you think the “streets will run red with blood” if that option is available?

          There are many reasons why someone might be openly carrying – but as it stands now, they have to either disarm themselves or conceal before leaving private property. But it’s perfectly legal to sling a rifle over your shoulder instead – what kind of sense does that make?

        • What is the point of open carry when you can have conceal carry? Why advertise you are carrying a gun to begin with?

          One HUGE reason is that if one must take a license then they are no longer exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

          Are you suggesting that a privilege is equivalent to a right? Is it acceptable to relinquish the exercise of a right when a government privilege is offered in its place? Do you realize what will happen to the right should that become commonplace?

        • Larry – open carry also gives you more options, in that you no longer need to compromise between capacity/caliber and concealability.

          Well, unless you plan on carrying a Pfeifer Zeliska, but that’s more a compromise between capacity/caliber and carryability.

    • We get it. We just don’t support stupid and counter-productive protests in response to a bad law.

    • Dude, he mentioned that specifically in the article: “Most were from Texas where such carry is legal and open handgun carry is not.”

      I think his statement had the unspoken caveat of “in accordance with state law”

    • Is it really beyond your comprehension that many people think it’s stupid to do it EVEN IF it’s the only legal open carry?!?!? Quit assuming we don’t know OC of a handgun is illegal in Texas. That just gives you an excuse to ignore our point, that OC of a rifle, especially the way shown in the pictures (single point sling, hand on the grip), is stupid if not reckless.

      I am aware it was a posed picture. But it is the only thing that more than 300 million Americans saw. perception matters, and you are creating a bad one.

  4. Well said. Carrying guns just to get attention is a bad idea. Carrying them in a ready position is a really bad idea.

  5. I agree with every point I don’t like seeing it anymore than the anti’s. Looking at this picture like most of the pictures of these types they have that immature look. Excellent post.

  6. All the “hunting and fishing” open-carry events around here have explicit guidelines about handling your firearm in public. Basically, keep it holstered and don’t touch it, especially when law enforcement is present.

    For those that don’t know, here in Florida the only permitted time you can openly carry a pistol is when you are going to or from a hunting/fishing activity or a sport shooting-related activity, or participating in those activities, obviously.

    So on occasion, what happens is that a group of firearms owners will go fishing on a pier somewhere, while openly carrying pistols.

  7. No matter how we try and justify the ‘right’ to open carry long guns, the perception is going to be that people may be heading for a place to ‘do bad things’. I am all for the right to keep an bear arms IN ANY AND ALL SITUATIONS, but (yup) PERCEPTION is what it is. Just like the writer stated, ‘Anyone can articulate the threat of a rifle in hand with your finger millimeters from the trigger. It’s no different than doing the same with a handgun in your hand. Most of you would never walk into a store with a handgun in your hand. Why would you do it with a rifle?’ If I see someone walking into the Walmart where I am going to shop carrying a long gun OUTSIDE of a case, I would wonder what is going on. Perception people: big thing that……

  8. Grandpa always told me only a fool disturbs the bees nest. Even the beekeeper moves slowly and wears a suit…

    Just sayin

  9. I wrote a P320 entry on how I think open carriers (of which I am one) should conduct themselves. Didn’t get put up (probably due to sub-par writing), but seeing others mirroring some of my thoughts on it (stop carrying at low-ready; stop wearing tactical gear; tight leashes on the a-holes in the group) tells me at least it was poor writing and not dumb ideas the shelved it.

      • True, and they can post it if they want, but after reading a lot of the other entries…lets just say I’m glad the winner is drawn at random, because that’s the only way mine has a chance! Some of you guys are great writers!

  10. I love how cops admit that they will hassle someone, even though they are not breaking any law, just because they don’t like the looks of the situation. Give a guy a badge……….

    • Hassel? I think he said “he gets shot.” If the State, as embodied by Sgt Hayes, doesn’t know and agree with your intent, you die.

      I disagree with long gun open carry demonstrations. However, the natural human tendency to force one’s will upon another, as demonstrated by Sgt Hayes is why I give wackos on the other end of the spectrum the benefit of the doubt.

      • I suspected that line was either sloppy wording or was thrown in just to get a rise from people. I going to give Sgt. Hayes the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn’t really automatically shoot people. Really the scenario is silly. An Open Carry demonstration is not just one shifty guy walking around. It’s a crowd of demonstrating people carrying signs and flags. I don’t think Sgt. Hayes would just walk into a crowd of people singling out one person then shoot him if he didn’t respond exactly as expected? I should hope not.

    • A police officer’s duty involves investigating suspicious activity. Someone holding a weapon in a ready position is damn suspicious to me.

        • Yep, and if they comply and cooperate with the investigating there won’t be any shooting. However, if they refuse to cooperate and continue to present an immediate threat by keeping their booger hook right next to the bang switch…they may catch some lead.

        • “Yep, and if they comply and cooperate with the investigating there won’t be any shooting. However, if they refuse to cooperate and continue to present an immediate threat by keeping their booger hook right next to the bang switch…they may catch some lead.”

          Wow. I guess thoughts like that are why we have the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. It is often said that the second amendment supports all of the others. In fact most of them support each other. The right to own a machine gun wouldn’t do me much good if that’s how the state was allowed to “investigate” me.

        • Of course there is a difference. Nathaniel nailed it. If someone is carrying a gun in a ready position the police should investigate what is going on, and they should be ready to draw their weapon if need be. If the police get calls from people saying there is someone with a gun and they see a person who is legally and responsibly open carrying they shouldn’t have to talk to that person, they can investigate just by looking.

        • That difference is the time it takes for a suspect to raise the muzzle and pull the trigger.

          Would you depend on that difference?

          Don’t put yourself in that position. He’s not saying “don’t open carry,” just do it right.

        • Of course, but if the guy carrying the rifle turns to respond to the cop, and his rifle rotates with his body and begins to point at the cop, and he already has his handle on the pistol grip and his finger near the trigger . . .

          Well, it might be a very short distance between the two. And that is just a very stupid way for someone to die.

        • That difference is the time it takes for a suspect to raise the muzzle and pull the trigger.

          Would you depend on that difference?

          Citizens have to depend on that difference every time an officer draws his firearm. But then again, cops have never used force to murder citizens before… 😉

    • Hugh would you open carry a pistol in your hand especially If is is a 1911 cocked and locked, when this open carry of long guns started they were carried slung across the back with the magazine out now we have people carrying them in the ready position,I think that is a bad idea . I understand the points about open carry but along with rights come responsibilities let,s use our heads on this issue.

    • Seriously?? A police officer sees a guy walking into a store/mall/restaurant with an AR/AK, held at the low ready and he should just walk away? Call me crazy, but I would really like for the officer to do his job and “hassle” the guy to make sure he is not on his way to the next mass shooting. Some of you guys really take the whole “evil LEO” theory to absurd heights…

  11. Carrying a rifle slung over the shoulder with barrel down if legal under state law is a demonstration or display protected by the Second Amendment and the First Amendment.

    If open carry of a rifle is done right — on the street (not in private businesses), by well organized groups, with good signage so people know what it’s all about, and with notice to local law enforcement so the cops don’t freak out — I favor it strongly.

    Carrying a rifle in one’s hands is a whole different kettle of fish, especially by a lone actor or a pair. It might easily be misconstrued by law enforcement as a threat, and maybe by me too.

    • This exactly. The problem is the open carry demonstrators are not getting their message across (they seem to be assuming everyone knows their motivations – and we can see from the comments here people don’t), they’re not carrying safely, and it’s turning into “Lookitme! Lookitmeeee!” instead of drawing attention to a law they want changed.

  12. I watched the Jerry Miculek video on open carry and liked it. He’s a better shooter than I’ll ever be, but my ammo is organized better than his.

  13. This is BULLSHIT and why I have problems with today’s police. Folks in TX are carrying long guns because its illegal to conceal carry, hand guns. Carrying long guns is speech, nothing more or less. The absurd statement of carrying at the ready is a cop looking for escalation regardless of the fact they’re just carrying. Do we now define intent…at port arms, sling left/right, barrel up/down or horizontal? People’s intent is NONE of your business.

    The carry of long guns will STOP when every citizen is able to conceal carry, exercising their natural right of lawful self defense.

    • I suspect you are spoofing but I’ll respond anyway:

      If you must demonstrate in such a manner, pull out the JC Penny catalog and look at the models in the clothing section. The are trying to sell something just like you are. Look like them–quiet, understated, well groomed, and smiling. (Also note that they are of modest build and have not sweated through their clothes. If you can’t pull that off, then maybe being a spokesperson for a movement is just not your thing.)

      If you are trying to sell the idea that guns are normal, then be normal. Be a normal person, going about your normal everyday activities, who happens to be carrying a gun. Such a person will have said gun stowed and secured out of his way so that he can better carry out his everyday activities. In fact, such a person would probably carry a gun that took into account that being armed is a supplemental activity to his primary purpose, and not an end in itself, such as a handgun.

    • Well then mk10108, why not make a REAL 1st and 2nd Amendment fashion statement and paint your long gun neon FLAME red and carry it at the ready everywhere you go to be sure you catch EVERYONE’s attention.

      Sheesh; I thought it was just the grabbers that embraced a “common sense” deficit.

      • Wrong Roscoe, here’s why. Police do not protect anyone. They take reports after an incident and choose to protect when they want. Review You Tube videos of Oakland gang members firing weapons at intersection in police presence and elect to drive past. Why because they’re scared of gang bangers. Roll that over to law abiding carriers and its investigate citizens going about their business. In effect let’s determine intent then maybe not arrest them.

        The difference is law abiding people are now subject to scrutiny (because they’re safe and police can run them for warrants) whereas gang bangers get a pass. The incessant need for LEO’s to get in the business of law abiding citizens is opportunity to create revenue via the 12,000 laws created for that specific purpose.

        The idea police can or will protect people is a lie, told by them, our city councils, legislators, and politicians. They do not want to accept they are employed at the will of the people and the more they can interfere with lawful self defense the more job security they hold on to.

        • Agreed.

          I remember years ago there was some crazy older woman walking around and flashing herself in a mall parking lot. A police car drove by and ignored her and drove right to a nearby doughnut shop I kid you not. Police only serve themselves, they don’t protect anyone but their masters and themselves. It isn’t their job to protect the peons.

    • Um, it is not illegal to conceal carry in Texas with a permit, and permits are not terribly difficult or expensive to obtain.

    • “People’s intent is NONE of your business.”

      Are you dense? Are you REALLY suggesting that someone walking into a bank with a ski mask and guns akimbo should be allowed to go about their business in there until the moment they rob the place, because their intent is none of your business?

    • Um, excuse me, when there is a concrete possibility that their “intent” is to KILL ME, then their intent is very much my business, thank you. Or did you forget about my right to life in that other amendment?

    • WTH are you talking about. Texas has conceal carry, it is open carry of handgun they want. The Texas Constitution prohibits the state government from regulating long guns but does allow regulation of carry of handgun. This stems from reconstruction after the civil war. Texas state law makers can change the law and allow unrestricted carrying of handguns or the Texas Constitution can be amended through a statewide vote to prohibit state government from regulating handguns.
      I am more worried about a backlash and the Texas Constitution being amended to allow regulation of long guns as well. That is my fear and we all lose in Texas with that!!!

  14. Yeah; good points; I was thinking of the analogy that a rifle slung muzzle down on my back is equivalent to a holstered pistol. So just as I would never consider walking down the street with my hand gripping the handle of my holstered pistol nor would I ever walk down the street with an un-holstered pistol in my hand unless I was going to use it in immediate self-defense; I would never walk down the street with the rifle slung in front or in the low ready with the pistol grip in hand unless I was in immediate need for self-defense.

  15. Rifle + sling + shoulder it = open carry.
    Rifle + low ready + finger near trigger = immediate threat.

  16. “I don’t know his intent and until his hand comes off that pistol grip I don’t care. He will be at gunpoint. He doesn’t comply, he gets shot.”

    You should probably get started now on explaining that at your deposition and trial the next time you justifiably use force in your job. Come to think of it, the community you serve should probably set aside some money to pay for the lawsuit.

    • Since you still didn’t read the quote and understand it after quoting him in the comments I’ll explain it to you. A rifle in hand is called brandishing, just as if you had a pistol in your hand. Remove your hand from the weapon. If you look like you are ready to shoot someone (ie carry in the low ready outside of an organized function) then you will be subject to felony stop procedures.

      • But he didn’t say he’d stop; he said he’d shoot.

        Also, I disagree with both your definition of brandishing and of your understanding of the investigatory stop. Please cite.

        • Brandishing can be defined as simply displaying in a threatening manner. So for this we’ll say it’s a pistol, then you can insert rifle later. Guy walking into Wal-Mart has a pistol in his hand. My perception is he is a threat to me and others in his immediate surroundings because he has his pistol out and appears ready to use it. During a felony stop, gun is drawn and commands are given because the potential threat level is high. Guy is holding a deadly weapon. If he does not comply with commands and makes some stupid nervous movements that can be interpreted as a threat, he is probably going to be shot. Officers do not know you or your intent. Dealing with the worst of society gives you the mentality of “assume the worst, hope for the best”. That’s my impression of Haye’s story.
          Flip the script and dude has a slung rifle, that’s going to be a quick investigation more interested in what rifle and does he like it.

  17. ok this might catch heat but Open Carry in protest of a backwards law should be done right or not done at all. I feel that by following the 5 simple guidelines listed below you could get the message across and cut down drastically on the bad press these events catch.

    1. Keep it in the streets DO NOT go in a business with the weapon on. Hand it off to a trusted friend, post a weapon guard and stack arms, or put it in a locked case in a locked car.

    2. No magazines in mag fed long arms. We don’t know and can’t tell if there’s rounds in there or in the chamber. You can always clean ole betsy after the event if she gets dirt in there.

    3. Chamber flags. These lil bright orange 10 cent pieces of plastic or bright colored zip ties will alleviate any doubt that the weapon is empty & will let folks know at a glance that you aren’t a threat.

    4.Sling it on your back. In many aspects of shooting I suggest deferring to the military, this aspect not so much. We carried them on our chest because in a low intensity conflict you just never know when you’ll need your rifle at hand quickly.

    5. Keep the idiots in line and display prominent eye catching signage. Not saying everyone is an idiot just sayin you see a carrier ignoring these rules, send them the fudge home! No exceptions. As for the signs well that should be self explanatory.

    Oh, and if you’re worried about defending yourself there’s no rule saying leave your CCW piece at home… carry the damn thing & use that instead of your long gun.YMMV

    • I would humbly suggest one addition…

      Dress appropriately! One of the recent OCT videos (I think it was at Sonic), showed guys wearing camo, wife beaters, and even a tactical vest. Why would you dress like this for a publicity event? Is this really the image OCT wants to portray?

  18. The thing that bothers me the most about someone carrying a rifle at low ready: Even if I dismiss the possibility that they are a criminal, I have no way of knowing the competence level of that individual. They very well could be an Idiot Gun Owner and an ND waiting to happen.

    • An open carry demonstrator publicly posturing with their long gun an “Idiot Gun Owner”?

      Nah, never.

  19. “Leave the rifle at home or in your car. Carry a handgun, open or concealed.”

    …But they can’t. carry. a. handgun. openly. Because they are in Texas.

    #America! (?)

    • Pretty sure he meant, open or carried (witch ever is allowed). I think it’s safe to assume that he knows you can’t open carry in TX.

  20. I am not a member but I support the efforts of Open Carry Texas to try to keep the torch burning for the Texas state legislature to address and pass open carry of handguns at next year legislative session. See this recent editorial written by CJ Grisham the founder of Open Carry Texas in USA Today:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/06/09/open-carry-texas-cj-grisham-editorials-debates/10259771/
    As you can read in the article they are listening to constructive criticism and adjusting tactics, but are continuing the struggle to get Texas gun rights on par the majority of American states. The dire scenarios imagined by Sgt Patrick Haynes are not accurate. Open Carry Texas have been conducting peaceful political demonstrations. There have been no reports of violent confrontation.

  21. I think Sgt. Hayes basically said “don’t be a di#khe#d”. Whatever folks-we just got legal concealed carry in Illinois. I’d love to open carry but it’s way down my list of importance. Rev is right on this one.

    • “I think Sgt. Hayes basically said ‘don’t be a di#khe#d’.”

      No. What he said was, “If I think you’re being a di#khe#d, or I’ll shoot you.”

      There’s a big world of difference.

  22. Carrying a holstered handgun is fine but when you carry a long arm around it just looks like you are hunting trouble.

    In short it’s rude.

  23. Bobmcd – We do get it. We know they can’t open carry handguns in Texas. The problem is that groups like OCT and OCT-Tarrant County are doing it the wrong way. And the way they are demonstrating is having repercussions on a national scale.

    BELIEVE ME BOB… WE GET IT. IT’S OCT THAT DOESN’T.

  24. ” I don’t mind where people make love, so long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.”
    Mrs. Patrick Campbell (1865-1940)
    Don’t scare the horses people.

  25. Well they are carrying the rifles because have guns are illegal, that’s the point. But I totally agree with the rest. I support open carry, I want them to succeed. Keep It on the shoulder and on your back.

  26. The private citizen’s perspective and freedom of actuon is different from that of a sworn peace officer.

    I can walk around all day muttering about the personal hygiene of my federal, state and local elected officials making them smell as bad as their corrupt governance. A private citizen can tell me to shut up and stop being annoying.

    A peace officer telling me to shut up is violating my right to free political speech.

    Bottom line, it is not the job of the police to decide how to interpret the law. That’s the job of the courts. It does NOT matter if the police officer likes what I say, it is my right to say it. Period.

    Does that mean I think the Chipotle-Carry folks are doing any good? No; frankly I think they’re being stupid and doing more harm than good. Does that mean I have a right to stop them acting like jerks? No, unless they’re on my property; then I can tell them to leave.

    But the police officer doesn’t get to tell them to stop, unless they’re breaking a law, any more than he can tell them – legally – to stop implying the governor’s parents were descended from ruminants. If they are breaking the law, then they should be arrested. But if open carry is legal, then getting arrested for open carry is as bad as arresting someone for wearing a Duck Dynasty cap.

    • Police officers are at the very front lines of interpreting the law – they are the ones making the initial contact, creating the detention / arrest, and deciding on a course of enforcement action. What happens to the violators when a police officer does not take action? Probably nothing.

      The judges and court system are definitely in play, but those only occur after an enforcement action has taken place.

  27. OCTards insistence on their “right” to carry long guns in a suburban setting reminds me of someone “insisting” on their pedestrian right of way in the cross-walk here in CA. Yeah, its a law, and technically- the driver has to give way.

    The reality is accidents happen, ALL THE TIME.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OygWX-X7J5o

    Same for OC long carry. If you dont check your surroundings, insisting on your right may not be just stupid, but life threatening. And not just to you, but other innocent bystanders.

    DON’T Be “that guy”…

    • Really? Accidents “happen all the time” in relation to long gun carry? Can you name a SINGLE instance where there was an accident involving carrying a long gun as a means of political expression?

      The only injuries have not been accidents, but deliberate actions by police officers like the writer, who says he WILL shoot someone for not obeying him.

      • KB- go back and read it again, slowly. The reference as to “all the time” was for CA pedestrians thinking their *right* to the right of way, made them safe, from oncoming cars.

        If I have to explain what the analogy is about, then you aren’t getting it, and I suspect on purpose, because you can’t or wont admit to the points that much more patient and experienced folks, like Jerry Miculek, or the good Sgt, or the NRA, have made over and over.

        • No, the man has a good point. If you wish to make an analogy between two rights, then the application of such a statement to one of them must be able to be equally applicable to the other. Your thinking was not very “Publius”cent in this case.

    • Sgt. Hayes isn’t the enemy. Neither am I. We are solidly for gun rights so long as they are used in an intelligent manner. I also don’t support the 1st Amendment when it is used to deliberately cause harm – as in yelling fire in the middle of the street or making a frivolous call to 911.

      The anti-gun cops out there are the ones who should legitimately keep you up at night.

      • We are solidly for gun rights so long as they are used in an intelligent manner.

        I’m sure that you and Hayes are good guys and not part of the problem, but you still don’t get it. As long as cops are the self-appointed authorities on what constitutes “an intelligent manner,” I can’t trust them.

        • I think I get gun rights as well as anyone. I think I also understand that government – and police officers who are part of the government – is supposed to serve the people. I just wrote a public facebook post about “just following orders.” The independent thinker can tell his police chief or commanding officer to pound sand rather than following an unconstitutional or immoral order. Further, “just following orders” does not justify the murder of women and children. Or in the case of police and SWAT teams, the family pet.

          Further, juries and judges still have the ability to nullify the conviction recommended by the police officer. Lawyers such as yourself are supposed to provide checks and balances, as should an armed populace. I welcome whatever checks and balances you can provide.

      • Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever heard of any case anywhere in the country where the cops responded to a 911 call about people open-carrying guns where it’s legal to do so by arresting the person who made the call for making a frivolous 911 call? I know making false 911 calls is actually illegal in many states…

  28. Here’s the Virginia (an open carry state) law on brandishing a weapon (source: https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-282)

    § 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

    B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

    I think it’s pretty clear that a Chipotle Ninja neckbeard who is carrying in a ready position with his finger next to the trigger is, at the least, right on the edge of meeting the legal definition of this crime.

    • The operative phrase in Texas law is “in a manner calculated to cause alarm.” In other words, the burden is on the state to prove that the subject carried or displayed the firearm with the specific intention of scaring someone. Not, mind you, that someone was scared at the way the firearm was displayed. Unless they have changed it recently. I still think Gen Zod has the right take on the situation.

      • The state can still try to infer intent from action. It’s probably a bit of a tougher case than in VA, but a prosecutor could still try to make it stick without being utterly unreasonable. I certainly wouldn’t carry either a pistol or a long gun in a ready position, precisely because it would appear threatening.

        • Can’t disagree with you there. And kudos for correct use of “infer”.

  29. Wow. Just wow. We have a sensible article, demonstrating gun manners and why gun manners are important to the cause (and the carrier)…. then we have the usual types crying and stomping their feet about how unfair it is and they want to keep on doing what they have been doing. The behavior suggests, once again, that they aren’t really for open carry at all, but appear to be working for Bloomberg in undermining the movement. It is unlikely people who are really down for the struggle can really be that bullheaded and closed minded to learning manners unless they are up to no good.

    • I agree. I am sure that there are many OCT members who mean well, but unfortunately they are not what the media is showing. Instead, they show the mall ninja wanna be’s, posing like idiots. Yes, I understand the point they are trying to make, but what are the results? So far, what I see is at least six major chains that have banned firearms in their stores. At what point will these guys wake up and think, “gee, maybe this isn’t working?”

  30. All of the constructive criticism above from law enforcement and concerned people about how to open carry a long gun in public did not matter on whit when CJ Grisham was arrested for open carrying a long gun last year. At no point did Mr. Grisham put his hand on “that pistol grip” as verified in the dash-cam footage. As shown here on TTAG: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/complete-dashcam-video-of-arrest-of-army-master-sergeant-cj-grisham/

    So maybe Sgt Patrick Hayes and other concerned people are not really interested in public safety, but are just moving the goal posts. They would prefer open carry to be restricted as it is in Texas. Or in States where it is law, they would prefer the citizens too cowed by the police to exercise their rights, as per Sgt. Hayes statement where he would confront and shoot an open carrier. Maybe Texas isn’t too bad, open carriers have not been shot here. Fined yes, but not shot on sight.

    • Sigh… What part of this don’t you understand? We are for open carry. RESPONSIBLE open carry. Idiots who open carry AR’s and AK’s into the local fast food shop at the low ready are doing more to take away that right, then MDA ever could.

  31. Normally, if this were anyone but an LEO, I’d let this pass; However, “He doesn’t comply, he gets shot” is a very foolish bit of unprofessional hyperbole that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

    “Doesn’t comply” with what? A person simply standing with a gun at ‘low ready’, not pointing the muzzle at anything endangered, not having a finger on the trigger, not disengaging the safety, is not liable to be legally shot. That person does not pose an IMMINENT threat. It’s an uncomfortable situation, and an officer could ASK any number of things to defuse the discomfort, but the person, absent a SPECIFIC and DIRECT threat, is not liable to deadly force. For example, if the person should simply say, in response to a command from said officer to ‘drop the gun,’ “No, that would be a bad idea,” and then walk off in the opposite direction, what is the officer to do then? Shoot him in the back? I think not. . . Unless the person has committed a crime, or will be committing a crime by not obeying the officer, the officer has no right to command the person to do ANYthing.

    Words have meaning, and they have weight. How about, “He does not comply with a lawful order, and does something obtuse that directly threatens me or a third party with lethal force, he MAY get shot.”?

    That’s better.

  32. Short version: “I will assume you have bad intentions and shoot you unless you prove otherwise.”

    No friend of liberty, this writer.

    • Agreed. No friend of civilization at all, this writer. Since when are assumptions sufficient justification for deploying lethal force? My, my, my, what arrogance these badge brandishers display.

    • No friend of liberty, this writer.

      This writer has previously demonstrated his positive defense of Liberty. Although I disagree with him on this one, I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with your statement either.

  33. Most open carry demonstrators are in organized, diverse, abundantly exuberant and cordial groups; often with the permission to visit the establishments they do. Name ANY mass shootings committed by a such a group. True, the regular public might be alarmed at such demonstrations, but there are people who are alarmed by absolutely nothing more threatening than a pop tart. See the lockdown of the day articles for numerous examples. Should we shut down people’s excise of freedom on account of the pearl clutchers? As for the lazy cops, they just don’t want to field the calls. It’s easier for them to show up, infringe on freedoms, cuff and stuff someone, than it is to do their damn job and keep the peace while respecting the Constitution.

    The mischaracterization of the typical rifle OC’er as being a lone guy with AR and low ready in Walmart is a disgustingly expedient and misleading use of imagery. I don’t know whether that was intentional on the author’s part and he intended to skew people’s perceptions, or if his own perceptions are so severely biased that he’s incapable of objectively assessing and discussing the subject.

    Either way, as a citizen, I am MUCH more concerned about HIM running around with a firearm and the accompanying authority, than I am about any bunch of OC’ers exercising their rights.

    • While I agree, I still see plenty of photos of Chipotle Ninjas and stuff with their hands clearly on the grips of their guns. Some even have their fingers on or near the trigger, and that’s stupid.

      • You’re losing credibility by continuing to comment with the “Chipotle Ninjas” shtick. I probably agree with your comments 99.9% of the time but not when you continue to push that meme. I have a lot of respect for your postings and those of a few other officers here. I don’t push insulting cop memes. TTAG ought not degenerate into this.

        • I don’t like how they do it but I defend their right to do it. I also, to a lessor extent, defend the right of the business owner to ask them to not.

          I was not there, Hannibal. Which one were you at Waco?

        • I agree, mainly because up until this post, McCain seemed to be if not the originator, then at least the chief user of that phrase, so anyone else who uses it is inextricably linked to him, in my mind. And since he has less than zero credibility with me at this point, people who are linked to him lose a pretty healthy amount of my respect as well.

        • @Matt in FL: To whom are you referring? If it’s me, then you’ll have to tell me which statement as I wasn’t a McCain supporter and have no clue what any McCainisms might be. If you mean the Waco comment, I was active before those incidents and it was just one of two that came to my mind for making a point (Ruby Ridge and Waco). It was a quick mental coin-toss for me with no attribution to any other speaker.

        • Oh, THAT McCain! LOL I was thinking John McCain and how I didn’t have the foggiest idea what he had said or didn’t in the past. I had put Paul T. McCain out of my mind hours ago and didn’t make the connection.

          Boy was I confused. 😀 Thanks for the clarification. I guess it’s past bed time here at the Ohio nursing home. Good night.

    • yeah that’s pretty much what I’ve heard in the comments section of any article about anything relating to OC. I’m sorry but when it’s near 100 with 100% humidity I open carry just because I don’t wanna ruin a holster and get my weapon wet when I inevitably sweat through my shirt and drawers while out & about or doing yard work. I also don’t want to have to worry about the weapon printing or adjusting my wardrobe to the weapon in the summer time I like wearing ball shorts and tanktops when it gets super hot.

  34. I couldn’t agree more. I support responsible open carry, concealed carry, and responsible storage. If someone has their hand on the grip of the rifle, they are a threat. Cut that sh!t out. I understand that TX if fighting for open carry. Being a Chipotle Ninja / mall commando / low ready open carrier doesn’t help our cause. I could definitely see threatening postures in the above photo. Keep your hand off the grip, and your finger off the trigger.

    Here are reasons for low ready carry:

    1. Law enforcement high risk / felony stop
    2. Marines on foot patrol in enemy or hostile territory
    3. Investigating a bump in the night
    4. Hunting
    5. Standing in a firing position at a sporting clays range
    6. Searching for a felony suspect / burglar etc.
    7. In the vicinity of an angry bear / coyote / mountain lion / dog, etc.
    8. 3 gun competition / IDPA / IPSC / timed competition, etc.
    9. Moving through a “shoot house”

    I’ll admit that my list is not all inclusive.

    Buying a burrito or a box of Twinkies does not necessitate the low ready carry.

    If you are going to be an ambassador for the 2nd Amendment, than do so. My current fight is against SB 53 – a massive ammo ban bill being considered in CA. There are many struggles for gun freedom – we don’t win them by being irresponsible with firearms. Let’s fight with style, class, and facts.

  35. Someone is approaching me with a with a long arm @ low ready, he gets ordered to put it on the ground once possibly twice it goes anywhere but the ground I’m going home that night. He may have the right to open carry, but @ the ready is brandishing by definition. People walk gunshows all the time w/rifle slung with price. What common sense reason can anyone provide to carry low ready into a store or even in public. You got a sling use it.

    • I’m going home that night. I’m going home that night. I’m going home that night.

      We here the same shit over and over. (not only from you and not only here) Enough already!

      • Yeah, John in Ohio, I’m tired of it too. In fact, I’ve had it right up to here.

        Cops say “I’m going home that night.” We hear “I’m going home that night even if I end up killing you, because who cares.”

        Well guess what. I want to go home at night, and I have a gun too. Now what?

        Try being cops instead of executioners and you’ll get a lot more support, okay? Try it before you tell us how you’re going home that night.

        • You are telling me if a guy brings a gun up on you you aren’t firing. Read the post I give commands to put it down it comes up what are you going to assume in the 2-3 seconds you have to make the decision. Not mentioning a shot because carrying but because weapon is being brought into play

    • You can’t change the rules of engagement at will and still keep your argument valid, Retired LEO. First you say that the fellow is at ‘low ready,’ and then you change it to ‘brings a gun up on you.’ Those are two completely different scenarios with two completely different response actions.

      The first may very well be a Mexican Standoff until something changes–the gun gets put down, or the person walks away, or there is some other peaceful understanding, or the muzzle comes up, at which it becomes the second scenario and the felon, for that is what he becomes, gets shot, hopefully.

      None of us have a ‘right’ to do anything on our own behalf that would be unethical or immoral; We have no ‘right’ to anything except the right to PURSUE ‘Life, Liberty, and Happinefs’ to the best of our abilities, and nothing more. There are no guarantees.

      • Well stated.

        Here is the quote, Retired: (emphasis mine)

        Someone is approaching me with a with a long arm @ low ready, he gets ordered to put it on the ground once possibly twice it goes anywhere but the ground I’m going home that night.

        Nothing in there states that the rifle was pointing at you! What if he simply refused?

        • He has 2 directions to go down to the ground or up. If it’s @ low ready . Ever been to a match where anywhere but the line any firearm can be in any posistion to discharge. Why there isn’t cross draw or shoulder holsters allowed at most ranges.
          Know a few detectives that carry in shoulder holsters.But the qualification for them is different line & behind is cleared so they don’t sweep the crowd. Same thing you are at low carry you have a police officer drawn or ready to draw telling you to put your rifle
          on the ground do you lower it or raise cause up or down are the direction you got. It’s already halfway into play.

        • He can refuse to do either. You did not specify that the rifle was pointing at you. I quoted your comment. My statement still stands. Additionally, if the person is inexperienced and doesn’t realize that the muzzle might sweep you a bit then you’d execute the guy based upon what you wrote previously, correct? In other words, a guy that wasn’t going to harm you at all tries to comply with your demand and he doesn’t get to go home safe that night… or ever. Uh-huh. All because you were afraid. Some are indeed more equal than others.

  36. The officer is absolutely right! If you walked into my business with ether a rifle or a hand gun at the low ready I would draw down on you in a second, I don’t know your intent, and the only time I carry my weapon at the low ready is when I plan on using it! That is a stupid move carrying anything at the low ready around the public

    • And, why would you NOT ‘draw down’ in that scenario? It would be perfectly justified, and eminently prudent. You do not, however, say that you would also automatically fire. There is a considerable distance between the two actions.

  37. “. . . In 20 years as a law enforcement officer, other than hunters during hunting season, I have never seen anyone carry a long gun just to do it. . .”

    And that’s exactly the problem. Open Carry Texas is trying to make a point, only it’s the wrong point. In all my years of being steeped in red-neck culture, growing up around and guns and hunters, anybody who’d walk into a business or restaurant carrying a long-gun as though they might be ready to shoot someone would meet with instant and quite clear rejection. This is something people with guns simply don’t do. Ever.

    Generally speaking People Of The Gun don’t like show-offs and that’s what we are seeing in OCT’s photos. It’s one thing to open carry with a purpose—walking down a public street with a shouldered weapon is a purpose, as is a gathering of people in a public space who are carrying shouldered weapons so as to make a point. But go beyond that and you easily end up in dangerous territory where even your potential allies think you’re just showing off while to everyone else you just look stupid. When OCT can’t recognize this often discrete difference it means the organization is way over its head. And when that happens, you just end up doing more harm than good. However well intentioned they may be, because of the actions of OCT, there are Texas politicians who are beginning to question the logic of open carry in Texas.

    • Garrison,

      Never in the history of this country has their been a need to carry long guns in public. Long gun carry is the direct result of politician hearing citizens but not listening, or completely ignoring them. What other means to you you recommend to get them to listen and make the lawful self protection, law of the land?

      Democratic process…does not exist on the left coast and posters on a stick doesn’t have the same effect.

      • Uhmm . . . don’t think so. For much of our history people carried long guns in the open. In many small towns you saw people carrying long guns all the time. In rural areas, kids would sometime bring their 22’s to school so they could go hunting on the way home. The difference is that open carrying a long gun was seen as a routine, something people did for a recognized purpose. They would never carry a weapon just to show someone else that they could. That was the difference.

        • But then again back then there was no danger of such a right being taken away. Thus carrying for the sake of doing so does have a very real purpose in today’s world. Hope that helps.

        • “But then again back then there was no danger of such a right being taken away.”

          Agreed, Paul G. But what the OCTers are doing is a public demonstration, a public drama designed to impart a particular message. My point (you’d think I’d make it clearer given the amounts of words I put out) is that open carry customs simply do not extend to people walking around outside (or inside!) business or in public spaces with their weapons at low ready and their hands on or near the trigger. As others have pointed out, regardless of good intentions, doing this is still easily regarded as threatening. What lit me up about this is, on seeing the photos, it was clear that the COTers were pushing the envelope well beyond any open carry custom that I was aware of.

          I’m entirely in favor of open carry and I’m entirely in favor of open carry demonstrations. But I also think OCT should give careful thought about the kind and quality of messages it want’s its demonstrations to convey. If OCT thinks its audience is the generally gun benign public, then its public actions should reflect the ways people customarily open carry. Posting photos of people carrying at low ready with their hands on or near the trigger is the absolute wrong thing to be doing.

        • What does “OCT” mean in this context? I don’t think that I’ve read or heard the term before. Presumably, Open Carry, but T???. Please don’t tell me that it stands for “tard”. 😀

  38. I think it works best to shoulder carry the semi and have fun with OC by putting a flower in the barrel.

  39. John In Ohio so police don’t have the right to go home alive. Here sounds better to you cop shot by guy walking down street. Then shoots some guy in OH wife/kid. You would be on the phone to a lawyer before the bodies were cold & posting the police did nothing. Go to a cops funeral a couple of times. See if you enjoy it.

    • No, cops don’t have a “right” to go home alive. They have a desire, and most support that desire. But they forfeit any presumed right to shoot first, or to run from the armed assailant, because they took the job willingly, not under duress.

      • Rights are not forfeited if they were right to be prosecuted would also. Can’t pick & choose either we are subject too the same rights & privileges and consequences as you
        have or your rights are suspended. Only thing is LE is held to a higher standard of conduct. Under your theory anyone in the military deserves what they get or a firefighter because of a job title.

        • Sorry, wrong you are. No “right to go home” exists. Even less is a “right to shoot someone suspicious in public”. You are paid to intervene where the public would walk away. You are paid to take calculated risks. You are not paid to shoot first and ask questions later. With your demeanor I am glad you are retired. Stop making up non-existent rights.

        • Seem a little confused where did I say shoot first ask questions later. Gave a very specific situation. Ordered to drop weapon. Tell me have you ever gone on a ride along? Try it.

        • I didn’t volunteer to take your job, and I have no need to be lured into BS sympathy for those who choose it. If the job bothered you so much, remember you chose it.
          Besides, I have plenty of law enforcement officers in my family, they just aren’t whiners like you.

        • Not whining or asking for sympathy suggested you do a ride along to see if you validate your points. Your statement you have family members in law enforcement explains alot.

        • Yep, they are good officers, not whiners. There are lots of tough jobs in the world, and not everybody expects you to “try their job” as a means to garner sympathy. Your whining explains a lot.

        • By the way, when I was in the military, a number of my actual rights (not ones made up by people to sound impressive) were limited or forfeited as a part of the position. P.S….what is a “right to be prosecuted”….another good made-up right?

        • You have the same right to file charges against us & prosecute. If we were special would we not be exempt?

        • Your terminology is awkward, and you seem to imply that officers have no privileges or immunities as part of the job. Wrong again.

        • Tell me what criminal acts police are exempt from being prosecuted for? We get put in jail for things you would get dismissed. An officer has a joint he will be fired & jailed. A decent cop finds you with a joint would toss it in the sewer unless you are driving, acting like a fool or have outstanding charges or a lot more than a bit of weed. Just as I do not think anyone under the unfluence should be carrying a firearm alcohol or drugs. Anything that alters your judgement alters your ability to decide life or death questions.

        • Now you are just playing dumb. Since I don’t smoke weed or drink I really don’t need police treating me like they always treat fellow officers in that regard.

        • You were aware that your rights were suspended when you enlisted correct?. UCMJ came into play correct.

        • Not all, again I already made a statement to that effect, try and keep up, okay? Same goes for law officers, despite your wrong assertion otherwise.

        • Agents of government operate on privilege. If, as claimed, officers are cops 24/7/365 then they have voluntarily suspended the exercise of much of their rights. I don’t agree with it or even like it. Cops should only be agents of government when on official duty. IMHO, that makes more sense.

          You took the job for the pay. Stop the whining and demanding special status. You worked as an agent of government for a paycheck. If that wasn’t enough then that’s your problem. Get over yourself.

        • Police are on duty 24/7 in most places due to lack of manpower just like firefighters so they can be recalled if needed. Most cops with anytime in could care less unless it’s a serious crime or involves threat to life

        • You have the same right to file charges against us & prosecute.

          You probably aren’t aware because you are in SC, however, in Ohio, it takes a sworn officer (or officer of the court?) to do that, AFAIK.

        • Charges would be filed on YOUR sworn complaint or
          as an affiant through prosecutors office. Also you would be the witness as you would be the cimplaintant. No prosecutor would prosecute w/o a witness or certainly with no complaint. Therefore you would be the cause of prosecution.

        • Your full quote:

          You have the same right to file charges against us & prosecute. If we were special would we not be exempt?

          AFAIK, it requires a sworn officer (or possibly an officer of the court?) to do this in Ohio. Whereas a cop can do it themselves. It’s unfortunate that you are unable or unwilling to realize the distinction. Try to “file charges” here while not being a sworn officer and you will be told rather quickly that it doesn’t work that way. There is no “right” in Ohio to “file charges” and officers routinely refuse to file a complaint and sometimes even to take a report. I have witnessed this more than once.

          Anyway, you’re wasting enough of my time. This is minutiae and you have been shown to be unreliable and incorrect more than once with your own words in these threads. It’s pointless to keep reposting your statements when you refuse or fail to recognize your error. However, I would love to have you on the witness stand in trial. I would eat you alive. Am I being detained? Am I free to go? Good! See ya!

        • Tell me have you ever gone on a ride along? Try it.

          I’ve worked with peace officers in the distant past and if I had to be in the cruiser more than fifteen minutes with you… Sweet baby Jesus, I’d shoot myself! 😀

          Oops. Same thread. I’m behind in the conversation… probably because I’m not retired. Now I’m moving along. Hopefully we will agree on something at some point in the future. 🙂

        • Actually the US Supreme Court has ruled police have no duty to act. Never
          run from a fight, never will. BTW what do you & paul g . Do for a living?

        • What I do for a living is none of your business. Just like a cop to think he has a right to ask questions of anyone and get an answer.

          Yes I am aware of the hypocrisy of the police forces, posting “to serve and protect” when they do neither, and then of course making sure they know they have no such obligation. Sort of like calling yourself a doctor but making it known you have no obligation to help anyone in need of medical assistance.

        • I just wanted a general field other than a cop hater. Who doesn’t realize politicians make laws. Judges & Lawyers interpret.

        • It is only your opinion that I hate cops, and by no means supported by fact. If I am more familiar with the topic we are discussing it is because I am an informed citizen and you were not a knowledgeable officer.

        • Quite familiar been campaigning for open carry in SC since we got a Democrat to sign CCW.

        • @Retired: I agree that an officer has no duty to act. I think that they get involved too much in lives of citizens. So, what’s the problem?

    • You would be on the phone to a lawyer before the bodies were cold & posting the police did nothing.

      You don’t know that! My long internet posting history, writing history, and statements do not support your assertion. I’m not one to claim that officers must stop a crime. I simply don’t want my individual abilities to protect myself and loved ones from criminals, government, and foreign enemies hobbled by infringement. I have consistently defended officers when they erred on the side of Liberty. I’ve taken a shit-ton of heat for so doing too. I can’t count how many times I’ve been called a “cop apologist” or a “cop lover” for defending officers’ actions. When I have been critical of officers’ actions, I’ve been called a “cop hater”, “anarchist”, and “cop basher”. Frankly, my only concern is individual Liberty and not which side of the “blue line” that individual happens to stand. I do, however, often err on the side of the individual over agents of government.

      Go to a cops funeral a couple of times. See if you enjoy it.

      And what is that supposed to show? What are you trying to imply or impart?

      You make a lot of emotional argument and use tired cliche’ but there’s not much of substance. Give me something of substance, please.

      • Your politicians take away your rights. You voted for them if you vote. Don’t like it vote them out, run for the office if you have to. Typing on a keyboard does nothing to change public thought except to be used against your candidate.

        • Your politicians take away your rights.

          Rights cannot be “taken away”. They can be infringed.

          You voted for them if you vote. Don’t like it vote them out, run for the office if you have to.

          I’m very involved in politics even though I have extreme dislike for it.

          Why don’t you stop molesting children?
          (See how that works. I have no reason to believe that you do molest children but one can make any assertion and cast aspersions. *** AGAIN, I do not believe that you really molest children or want anyone else to believe that you do!)

          Typing on a keyboard does nothing to change public thought except to be used against your candidate.

          You seem to be the king of assuming facts not in evidence. I do much more than just type on a keyboard. Also, if you think that typing on a keyboard does nothing positive then why are you doing the same thing? Are you just trolling for amusement?

        • Our typing back & forth. I freely admit I’m politically active. But I have no idea.if you do vote. My degree in poli sci did teach 1 major thing most don’t vote usually because of jury pool duty.

        • I’ll post something positive at you, Retired.

          I’m glad that you are politically active. I’m glad that you post. I would rather you be active and posting than any anti. IMHO, what are really doing here is honing the edge of Liberty in the minds of others (and, perhaps, ourselves too). That, also IMHO, is important and I don’t view you as “the enemy”. I agree with some of what you post at times.

    • Neither of the Johns are trying to imply that LEOs should accept being killed as a price of being thus employed; What we ARE saying is that if the price we pay for your ‘right to go home’ is the life of one who needn’t have been shot, but was instead shot as a precaution to prevent what he might POSSIBLY have done, absent any articulable proof of the inevitability of the negative outcome, the price is too high, and your ‘right to go home’ is hereby revoked.

      Let us say, for example, that you meet me in a store; You are a uniformed LEO, and I am a private citizen. We are both armed–your pistol holstered, as is mine. We both are open-carry. You do not know it, but I am a Retired LEO as well, still carry a sidearm and long gun in my post-retirement ‘avocation,’ and I am capable of drawing and firing upon you far faster than you can do the same to me. Heck, for the sake of this argument, let’s say that you DO know it. Given that I can kill you before you can kill me, given the chance, do you now have the right to shoot me as a precaution, although I have not threatened you in any way? Does your ‘right to go home’ override my right to live so long as I have not directly and overtly threatened your life?

      No, it doesn’t.

      And I have attended many an LEO funeral, should you be curious. Luckily, I was not the centre of attention in any of them.

      • It was actually in reply to a person approaching @ low carry & not responding to lower his weapon. Was my original statement after that it turned into because police chose that as a job we gave up the right to go home alive to quote John in OH was tired of hearing that shit.

  40. Exactly….if you’re carrying at low ready, I have no idea what your immediate intent may be; you are a threat. It’s exactly the way the writer says, I don’t carry my handgun in my hand at the ready; it’s in my holster. If you want to carry your long gun, sling it across your back. Some of you folks I’m sure did time in A’stan or Iraq and the ready position was accepted and that is what you may be used to. The rest of you are just a bunch of strap hangers.

    I have no problem with you carrying your long gun. I do have a problem with the way you do carry it.

  41. I must confess that I don’t have the answer as to whether or not OC helps or hinders our cause as SA supporters, but am struck by the parallels between the OC movement and the gay rights movement of yesteryear. The argument for OC seems to be similar to the arguments employed by gay protesters of years past: the only way to secure our rights is to challange people to see us as an everyday part of their lives. Perhaps we just need a catchy slogan: we’re armed! There’s no harm! Get used to it!

  42. I don’t like that these individuals carry low ready. I’ve carried long guns in public. If it is just going about my business, it has been slung on my back. At demonstrations, my rifle has been slung on the front because of the large crowds. This came about primarily because my muzzle was sweeping those around me when pointed up and my muzzle was hitting people when pointed down when on my back. If I can ever afford a small enough rifle with the right sling that will prevent this, you will not see me slung around front again. However, I support the right of those who choose to carry at low ready. It’s their business. If one were shot because they drew the weapon and pointed it at someone, I’d defend the shooter’s actions. But again, I won’t condemn them for carrying as they see fit.

    As a side note: I’ve found that it’s easier to answer the peoples’ questions about the rifle when it is around front. Quite a few people ask to have photographs taken with us and they want the rifle in the picture.

    • I would also be one of the last to condemn an officer if someone at low ready went on to commit a crime with that firearm. I would tend to support the officer’s choice to err on the side of individual Liberty in the moment. I know that cops aren’t mind readers, most people aren’t, and I don’t expect them to be. What I do expect from agents of government is self-restraint.

    • And, you, “John in Ohio” are a perfect poster child for the Chipotle Ninja movement. Feeding up ammo to the enemy, making it easy for MDA to do their thing. Bringing contempt and disgrace on all responsible, freedom-loving firearm owners, all because you can not exercise even a modicum of common sense and sound reason.

  43. other than hunters during hunting season, I have never seen anyone carry a long gun just to do it.

    Now that’s a low blow. I may not be the most successful of hunters, but damnit, that doesn’t mean it’s just for show.

  44. The open carry obsessed are oblivious to the fact that if they keep pushing the issue by tossing common sense out the window with how, when and where they carry black rifles, a change of law restricting the open carry of long guns will have mainstream support even in conservative Texas.

  45. “Cops don’t walk around all day with a gun in their hand or a rifle at low ready.” – Sgt Patrick Hayes

    Actually here in NY/NJ area they do walk around all day with their rifles (and full “auto”). Just walk through NY’s Penn Station, Grand Central Station and its a guarantee that you will see police from nearly every LE Agency walking around with their rifles in low ready. Then just walk through Manhattan, or take a subway, PATH or any other public mode of transportation (LIRR, NJ Transit, etc…) and you’ll be confronted by armed LEO’s just walking around open carrying of long arms.

    And these public displays of threat and intimidation here in NY, cause uneasiness in the public, probably as much as it does in TX

    • You may be singling out the NYPD Hercules team, specifically tasked with terror prevention. Those are the only guys I have seen with rifles since 911.

  46. It doesn’t really matter very much how the rifles are carried. When people who aren’t sure about gun rights see dummies carrying around rifles in restaurants, then many of those people will assume that gun owners are dumb, thoughtless, rude people. If I hadn’t grown up with firearms and shooting sports, I might react similarly to a group of morons like those pictured above.

  47. “It’s common sense folks!”

    You wouldn’t know common sense if it ran up and spat in your face. Nor would you do anything about it, either.

    “If I see a man walking into a Wal-Mart with an M4 at low ready I am going to stop him.”

    No, no you’re not.

    “His manner of carry presents as an immediate threat. That is just how it is.

    No, no it doesn’t, you can’t prove that it is (because it’s not), and that is how it is.

    “I cannot ignore him just because he might be exercising his rights.”

    Yes, yes you can, and odds are that you will.

    I don’t know his intent and until his hand comes off that pistol grip I don’t care.

    You don’t have to care. You even openly admit that you don’t know his intent so it’s absolutely none of your business to begin with anyway. You know it’s not because you also know you cannot even articulate any particular reason why it would be, because it doesn’t present any threat to you or anyone else.

    “He will be at gunpoint. He doesn’t comply, he gets shot.

    That’s pure posturing right there (not to mention laughably unprofessional to boot), which tells me you’re only talking shit and have not the compunction or the stones to back it up, not to mention that that’s patently illegal in many states — regardless of whether you’re an LEO or not.

    “Leave the rifle at home or in your car. Carry a handgun, open or concealed.

    First of all, fuck right off. It’s my right to carry a long-gun, and that’s all I need to say right there, you have no valid response to the contrary. Not everyone even has that option anyway, in case you didn’t notice (and you obviously haven’t). People are simply making do with what they can do, and if that means open-carrying of long-guns then that is what is going to happen regardless of what you or any other sheeple thinks, says, or does.

    “We don’t need the bad press and we certainly don’t want two gun owners shooting each other because one wanted to act irresponsibly.”

    We’re always going to get bad press regardless of what we do, in case you didn’t notice that, either, Einstein. Apparently, you missed that memo, too, or simply ignored it. Besides that, nobody has ever shot anyone at an open-carry demonstration in the entire recorded history of open-carry demonstrations for as long as it has been legal anywhere in the U.S. Any arguments built on worries of negligent discharges (there are no “accidents”) are purely unfounded and are explicitly inadmissible in the Court of Public Opinion regardless of who brings them to the fore.

    Now, quit your chest-thumping already. It’s embarrassing.

  48. Wow…
    I’m seeing A LOT of stupid in these comments, but thankfully I see a lot more smart. This is why I love debate. It forces us to bring all of our reasoning and mental abilities to bear while we prove that our point is the one to believe.

    I don’t have a stance on OC. I win over people by being polite, professional, and I do it verbally and on a 1-1 basis. If they did a protest here, I would go, but I would probably talk to people more than carry my rifle (all I have is a mosin after all…)

    -What do you think of this?
    -Well why do you feel like that?
    -I can understand where you’re coming from…
    -How can you say that about people you honestly don’t know?
    -I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
    -see? It ain’t so bad. It’s never been so bad.

  49. If you walk into a store openly carrying a gun I can see, then I have a right to shoot and take you down out of fear for myself and the lives of others.

    If I may use an NRA slogan: “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. How do I know if you were a good guy showing off your right to carry or a demented psychopath on a killing spree! Think a jury would convict me?

    • Yes the jury would convict. Carrying a gun, a legal activity, does not a “bad guy” make. You acting as judge, jury, and executioner makes you the bad guy. If guns scare you so much you might jus want tot divest yourself of the ones you currently own.

      • Absolutely. There’s no doubt about it. What we have, here, is an example of Dunning-Kruger Effect: Somebody too ignorant to realize just how ignorant that they are. It’s what makes the InnerWebs so much fun.

  50. Blame the victim much?

    Put the criticism where it BELONGS, on Texas State Representative Joe Pickett, who singlehandedly abuses his committee position to quash every open carry bill presented so far. It would pass handily, BUT NOT FOR HIM.

    The open carry demonstrations are a response to that. Don’t like it? Too bad. Suck it up, marshmallow. The last I checked, rights don’t need approval. Instead of criticizing like a pussy, how about you join in and help stand against those who would take your right to arms and every other right they don’t like? How about you DEMAND the Constitution be obeyed instead of lecturing free people about prompting politicians to disobey it?

    But I guess it’s easier to say “she was askin’ fer it,” isn’t it?

  51. We don’t have to carry a rifle at low ready to carry a rifle. I think open carry of long guns for protest should be done in a safe and effective manner and that does not mean one a&@hole in Starbucks with an AR-15. But even a@@holes have rights. So I support the right if not the terrible manners.
    That said walking in with a hand gun drawn is not the same as a hand gun holstered. And walking in at low ready is nearly the same as guns drawn. Sling it across your back people or if your going to eat AFTER a visible protest put your gun in a soft case.

  52. Carrying rifles like that is tasteless. A rifle belongs in a home or a vehicle, not on one’s person. There is simply no way to do it attractively. A concealed carry handgun will bother no one. It can also be tastefully and discretely carried in the open.

    From a tactical view, rifles are big and hard to draw quickly. A handgun, open or not, is far more formidable especially if it points well and the owner practices bent arm draws.

  53. Fortunately, our Constitutional Rights aren’t (yet) governed by the opinions of police.

    Especially those who show an intentional lack of understanding of the issues.

  54. Carrying rifles like that is tasteless. A rifle belongs in a home or a vehicle, not on one’s person. There is simply no way to do it attractively. A concealed carry handgun will bother no one. It can also be tastefully and discretely carried in the open.

    From a tactical view, rifles are big and hard to draw quickly. A handgun, open or not, is far more formidable especially if it points well and the owner practices bent arm draws.

    Take another example. Planned parenthood favors a right to abortion. They don’t set up a table and plug in the vacuum cleaner in front of a shopping mall with some girl’s legs in the air. Can you imagine someone yelling freedom if choice and exercising it in public? Neither can I.

    Some people do have a phobia if guns. Conceal carry or tastefully carrying a handgun in the open in a discrete manner is best for everyone.

  55. “makes the public very uncomfortable.” No, it makes gunhaters uncomfortable, Sarge. Now, what I want is a legitimate reason and explanation why America hater’s 1st A rights trump MY 1st A rights? Precisely how are “they” more important than me?

  56. Oy. Well, at the risk of a liberal pro-gun-control person commenting on a pro-gun site….

    Setting aside my usual objections, I find these guys (the aggressive open-carry/finger-on-the-trigger guys) both interesting and moronic, because they bring up one of the few scenarios where I could (in theory) see myself using a gun. If I…
    1. actually owned a gun and had it on me.
    2. had children
    3. was in a restaurant with said children
    4. and I was less pacifistic and non-confrontational than I am in real life,
    and then these guys walk in with fingers on their machine guns…
    are they really, REALLY (after things like Sandy Hook or any other shooting where a bad guy walked in and started firing before anyone could do anything and because, as pro-gun people keep saying “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun) REALLY expecting me to gamble my children’s lives against the chance that they’re “just demonstrating their rights!”?

    Whatever my objections, general open-carry laws are open-carry laws. However, you are an idiot if you go around with an open gun with your finger on the trigger and expect that no one will perceive you as life-threatening and act accordingly.

    • Pro-gun control or not, your point is valid. That’s why most of us cringe when they see those guys. Because we get tarred by their brush.

      That’s an interesting phenomenon, by the way, because the same folks — usually pro-gun control, as these sensitivities tend to run together — who would loudly decry lumping all Muslims together (because most of them aren’t terrorists) have no problem whatsoever doing the exact same thing to gun owners, even though the only thing I have in common with those finger-on-or-near-the-trigger jackasses is the fact that we happen to own the same inanimate object.

        • Yep. You did. Rachel wrote, if you go around with an open gun with your finger on the trigger. Two mentions of “on”, one mention of “near” or not, tends to leave others to jump to “on” in their thinking during further discussion.

          Rachel, you, and I probably agree that a finger “on” the trigger is not a good thing. A finger “near” the trigger is subjective. Since she jumped straight to “on” the trigger and you followed up with the “on” statement without challenge, you can surely see how that lends to future assumption in a conversation. I didn’t think that we were talking about someone with their finger actually on the trigger. Perhaps I missed that in the article and will have to reread it tomorrow.

      • Hey, we’re all human, with all the pros and cons that come with it. One of our unfortunate traits is the tendency to group people we think of as “other” together in a big bundle of unhelpful stereotypes, and that happens with liberals as much as any other grouping. I sometimes fail, but I just keep trying to remind myself not to do that (In terms of pro-gun people, I just keep trying to remind myself that most people in the NRA are for sensible gun-control measures).
        Sure, as a (mostly) Democrat, I tend to think democrat politicians are generally less corrupt than republican ones, but I also live in San Diego, and if you didn’t see the news a few months ago we just had to get rid of our previous Democratic mayor because he was a complete SLIMEBALL. There are bad eggs in every bunch, and I just try to remind myself that most of the eggs are going to be good regardless of where they came from.
        If only we could take away the microphone from the bad eggs, but alas, that is the price of free speech.

    • I could almost accept what you have written here as being reasonable until you went overboard and engaged in hyperbole and fallacy.

      Every day, whether you know it or not, you rely upon the good graces of strangers not to terminate your life or that of your loved ones. The other driver in traffic who does not force you off the road although he could, the driver who doesn’t run over you in the crosswalk even though it would be easy, and the fellow with the concealed handgun who forebears executing you in public, although he could, all do NOT kill you, although possessing the immediate ability to do so, because it’s Uncivilized, bad manners, and illegal.
      If you fly on a commercial jet, you rely upon the good manners of the pilot not to auger the aircraft into the ground from 30,000 feet; When you are dining out, you trust the chef not to poison you. At any moment, either the pilot or the chef could develop an instant dislike for you and perhaps himself, and decide to take you out.
      By extension, your breathless claim that you would be tempted to peremptorily execute a ‘guy with a machine gun with his finger on the trigger’ who has not pointed his weapon at you, just because, seems rather odd: Is the danger any greater because you can SEE it? Do you have any idea how often the man or woman seated next to, or behind, or across from you is actually carrying a weapon capable of killing you and your brood, yet it causes ZERO concern to you because it’s not visible? Does that make any sense? Would you feel more secure if you KNEW that your fellow diners were packing heat? IF you knew, would you want to kill them first as well?

      The other serious problem with your writing is the phrase ‘machine gun.’ NOBODY is out there carrying a machine gun. VERY few people can AFFORD a machine gun, a rarity in itself, with prices starting around the price of a new car, and even to purchase one requires government approval and a tax stamp–IF you can find one to buy, as no new civilian-transferable ones have been allowed into, or to be made in, this country since 1986. You have fallen victim to propaganda: Not everything that looks like a fully-automatic weapon is fully automatic. If you do not understand a word or phrase, you had best research it before you write about it–otherwise, you sound the fool.

        • Ms. Rachel, I think, is a reasonable person; I can understand her sentiments, and if I was to rely upon emotion rather than reasoning, I would feel it appropriate to act as she describes. The ‘machine gun’ thing is simply a matter of ignorance; I think that she will correct this, and hopefully will do some reading on that and other gun-related subjects before she posts again. I expect a MUCH better effort the next time, and I would be glad if there is one.

      • John- You are correct in that I know fairly little about types of guns, so I will upon further research replace machine gun with “assault rifle”
        Before I go on, perhaps it would help to explain that this was the picture I was looking at: http://bulgebull.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/chipotle-leave-your-guns-at-home/
        It is, however, still a large gun that is designed to fire a large quantity of bullets in rapid succession.

        I don’t know about the rest of these guys, but the dude on the right’s finger is clearly on the trigger, which is why I used that phrase.

        As to your other point however, I must continue to disagree. While I realize there is inherent risk by generally being around other people in a variety of situations, there is a HUGE difference between someone driving a car and someone carrying a gun like that.

        Cars and Planes: their primary purpose is is transportation. Of course they can be used as weapons (as can many things), but they were not designed to be used to kill, they were created to help people get to other place.

        Guns are made and used to kill things. That is the end-all, be-all of their existence. So it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the person in the car next to me is not trying to kill me, as well as it being perfectly reasonable that the person with their weapon drawn and hand on the trigger or close to it IS looking to kill someone, quite possibly me.

        I also specifically brought up a scenario based on “emotion” because it is the only scenario in which I could picture myself capable of shooting someone…a life or death scenario where I (to the best of my knowledge) don’t have time to muse on the ethics.
        (SHOULD people stop and think before they shoot? Of course, but that’ not the point I’m trying to make just here).
        Another point is that I think guns make people MORE irrational because they escalate any situation to “life-threatening” (assuming it wasn’t there already). It puts people into “fight or flight” mode, where you’re much more likely to do something dumb, or at least act on instinct. This is why I don’t approve of open carry conceptually, because you are going to make people around you unnecessarily nervous.

        For concealed carry, yes I am less nervous because (assuming you would like me to give people the benefit of the doubt) it means they are not looking for trouble, and are carrying just to protect themselves. By concealing they are avoiding making people feel threatened by their presence.

        And if they ARE carrying to kill someone? Please see “Why I support tighter restrictions on gun acquisition”. The reasons are very similar to why “I’m very glad pilots must have thousands of hours of flight experience and that the entire airline process is bogged down in checklists and bureaucracy that, while very annoying , makes it very very safe to fly”

        My ultimate point is not that people should be shooting willy-nilly (quite the opposite) my point is that guns=threat, threat=I-have-to-evaluate-how-much-of-a-threat-to-my-life-in-a-very-short-stress-filled-amount-of-time, and that by deliberately putting people into that mode by carrying guns in a threatening manner (in this case, having the gun drawn and your hand, if not on it, in a position where it can quickly reach the trigger), they are asking for trouble and stupidly taking the risk of someone taking a preemptive shot in self-defense.

        Setting the fight-or-flight reaction aside though, I do not think these people are truly doing this for 2nd amendment rights. Or rather, they think they’re doing it for 2nd amendment rights, but the only reason I see to behave like this is because they get a power trip by carrying a big gun around and intimidating the people around them, which is Offically Not Okay. I see this the same way I see freedom of speech, in that you have the right to say anything you want…but if that anything is some form of “I’m gonna kill/injure you!” I am well within my right to take you up on your word and act accordingly…no, you don’t get to back out when I call the police on you to arrest you.
        From a constitution standpoint: the constitution gave us the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves, particularly from oppressive governments. It did NOT give us that right so that we can go around intimidating our fellow citizens.
        And from a Human Decency standpoint: people have the right to go about their lives in a relatively safe environment, and have the right to FEEL safe in that environment. That includes not having to be in public spaces with people brandishing firearms. If you do need/want a weapon for self-defense, then all you should need is a concealed handgun. Again, I’m not gonna impose on other state’s laws (not that I can since I don’t vote in those states) but personally I see no reason to allow people to carry large weapons in public at all, Just because you have a right to doesn’t mean you should.

        • “I will upon further research replace machine gun with “assault rifle””

          Unfortunately, you simply exchanged one term for a synonymous one. That’s one big problem in this debate: one side demonstrates, even revels in, a near-total ignorance of the subject matter. They don’t need to “know about” guns, they just know they’re all black and scary, and that’s enough knowledge for them. I do not mean that to be offensive to you, because at least you’re here talking and (hopefully) learning. But time and again, we see evidence that the folks on the other side, whether you call them anti-gun or pro-gun control (or my favorite, pro-civilian disarmament), exhibit almost no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. And though it’s a double standard, it’s true that while folks on my side don’t need to know anything about guns to say “I like guns,” folks on the other side should make damn sure they know what they’re talking about when they try to take them away.

          The most famous example was when Carolyn McCarthy was being interviewed by Tucker Carlson in 2007, and he asked her what a “barrel shroud” was, as that was one of the characteristics that denoted an “assault weapon” in the assault weapon ban bill she was proposing. After dodging the question a couple times, she finally admitted that she didn’t know, but she thought it was “a shoulder thing that goes up.” (You can see the video clip here.) Even someone who didn’t know anything about guns but who had a basic command of the English language should have been able to come up with a better answer than that. The answer is right there in those words; it’s not voodoo. Everyone knows what a gun barrel is, and a shroud is something that covers something else. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with what she said, because she was clearly talking about a folding stock (which was another of the “assault weapon characteristics” in her bill, and renders a gun 500% more deadly, dontchaknow). And that ignorance is being demonstrated by someone who would make rules to govern the rest of us, someone who thinks she “knows better” and needs to protect us from ourselves simply by virtue of her job title. (For a more recent example, see California Sen. Kevin DeLeon and his “ghost guns” and “30 bullets within half of a second” video here.)

          If someone who wants to take away my guns (or anything else, for that matter) cannot demonstrate even a basic command of the vocabulary involved in the subject matter, how the heck am I supposed to give any respect to what they say? Although that applies to anyone from the grassroots to the Congressional level, it really goes double for the legislators, because they’re the ones that make the laws by which we’re governed. I think it behooves them to make damn sure they know what they’re talking about when doing so, no?

          Now, generalities aside, on to the specifics of the very basic mistake you made in the quote that I used to open this comment. Machine gun is a term that nearly everyone knows and understands, but the term you used, assault rifle, is actually synonymous with machine gun, even if it’s misused (a cynic might say purposely) all the time by the media and anti-gun politicians. Assault rifle is defined as “a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.” The part of that definition that’s relevant here is “selective fire.” That means you can choose between semi-automatic fire (one bullet per pull of the trigger) and some form of automatic fire (more than one bullet per pull of the trigger, i.e. a “machine gun”). You seem like a smart lady, so I don’t think that warrants further explanation.

          Perhaps the term you meant to use was “assault weapon,” but using that term also leads you into a morass of confusion. You see, no one can define exactly what an “assault weapon” is. Though it was surely used previously, the first use of the term “assault weapon” in the gun control debate specifically is attributed to a man named Josh Sugarmann, who founded the Violence Policy Center, a well-known proponent of gun control. He advocated the use of the term assault weapon precisely because it was so easily confused with “assault rifle,” and from that confusion gains could be made in advancing his cause. Here’s the exact quote, written in 1988:

          “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”

          The last line of his quote ties in well with the last line of your comment: “…I see no reason to allow people to carry large weapons in public at all, Just because you have a right to doesn’t mean you should.” The last half of that is a logical statement, and can be applied to most anything in life. My problem lies in the first half, the “allow” part. See, it’s legal. So one can do it. Maybe some think one shouldn’t for various reasons, but it becomes a problem for me when the fact that you think I shouldn’t translates into you telling me I can’t. That you will not “allow” it simply because you think it’s a bad idea. That’s malum prohibitum lawmaking. Bad because I say so. Some things that are illegal are that way because they are intrinsically bad. Murder, rape, theft are all malum in se, bad in themselves. The carrying of a gun, handgun or long gun, in public is not an intrinsically bad or good thing. It’s just a thing. You could make an argument about disturbing the peace, but there most places already have a law about that. Texas, for instance, includes in its open carry statutes the phrase “in a manner calculated to cause alarm.” That means someone has to be trying to make a scene. If they’re just carrying, peacefully, and you get scared I’m sorry for you, but that doesn’t mean they’re breaking the law, and it doesn’t mean that their activity should be disallowed.

        • Ms. Rachel, you did precisely what I told you NOT to do: You didn’t do any real research, and you posted two fallacies. No, I’m sorry–you posted two LIES.

          I see that Matt in FL has done the heavy lifting for me vis. machine gun/assault rifle and how my explanation of the former led you to use the propagandized version of the latter. His explanation being clear, all can see where you have selected to regurgitate propaganda. You forget that you are dealing, here, with people who in many cases have made their living working with firearms, and some that still do so.

          I followed your link to the photograph in question; The person on the right, the smaller one, has his rifle slung VERY low, muzzle down, and even without enlarging the picture, I can see that he CLEARLY has the index finger of his right hand straight along the lower FRAME of the rifle, above the trigger guard, and it is NOT on the trigger in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it is in the recommended ‘safe’ carrying position as used by the US armed forces, by the NRA, and by all reputable civilian and law-enforcement instructors.

          You have exaggerated, and you have propagandized. This is not the means of gaining respect for your position; It is, however, the means by which your arguments can be dismissed. If you lie in one area of importance, you may be suspected of lying in others. Any validity to anything you say is now suspect to us.

          Further, you, and many others here, need to look up the definition of ‘brandish’ in the context of weapons. You keep using that word. . . it does not mean what you think it means.

  57. Texas arguably has the least restrictive common sense gun laws in the U.S. with few restrictions on handgun carry and practically no restrictions on long gun carry, but that’s not good enough for the Open Carry Obsessed.

    Many Texans like myself appreciate that citizens can easily be licensed to carry a concealed handgun on their person just about anywhere they choose to go, and really appreciate the privilege to carry a loaded and immediately accessible handgun or long gun in a vehicle without having to be licensed at all.

    For generations it has been common in Texas to carry a rifle or shotgun as a truck gun, but just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s always smart, that’s where the application of common sense that so evades the Open Carry Obsessed kicks in.

    There has never been any serious attempt mounted by the pro gun control minority in Texas to impose restrictions on the carrying of rifles and shotguns, but if enough average and somewhat disinterested Texas voters are exposed to the unreasonable and irrational rants and actions of the Open Carry Obsessed, such restrictions are not outside the realm of possibility.

    When it comes to Texas gun laws, there is no viable or compelling reason for the State Legislature to fix what is not broken, but if enough misguided souls continue to waltz into the local coffee shop or grocery store toting long guns, they will manufacture a viable and compelling reason for the Legislature to act and the rest of us will lose our ability to apply common sense and good judgment as to when and where we choose to carry long guns.
    .

      • Paul G, you need to study up on the difference between a privilege and a right. A right such as our 2nd amendment right is something that cannot be taken away without an arduous change of the Constitution and cannot accomplished by a legislative body simply passing legislation.

        A PRIVILEGE is something that can be given or taken away by legislation. When concealed carry became State law after the 74th session of the Texas Legislature in 1995, residents of the Lone Star State gained the PRIVILEGE to be licensed for carry of a concealed handgun. Texans gained another PRIVILEGE when the 82nd Legislature in 2011 amended the Penal Code and made it legal to have a concealed handgun in the vehicle without being licensed for concealed carry.

        Just as easily as a State Legislature can pass a law granting a PRIVILEGE, they can pass one taking it away, that’s why liberal dominated States like the Peoples Republic of New Jersey are able to pass ridiculously restrictive guns laws that would be absolutely untenable to Texas voters.

        Ignorance of basic legal principles, such as the difference between a right and a privilege, gives the radical anti-gun liberals an opening to twist and spin the truth into their leftist lies.

        Thankfully Texans have little to worry about when it comes to restricting their handgun and long gun carry PRIVILEGES, but the hard headed bluster of the Open Carry Obsessed is completely counter productive and offers nothing to insure that the permissive gun laws we enjoy in Texas today will remain in effect for generations to come.

        • You kind of shot yourself in the foot there. Licensed carry is a privilege. As I understood your initial post, you were extolling privileged carry and condemning the exercise of the right to bear arms. Am I misunderstanding something in your statements?

          AFAIK, the right to open carry a handgun is infringed completely in Texas. Likewise, the right to conceal carry a handgun is infringed in Texas but the privilege of a license is in its place. That only leaves the open carry of a long gun as the exercise of the right to bear arms in Texas.

        • John and PaulG, obviously neither of you have ever read the Texas Constitution which very specifically bears out that you both don’t know what you’re talking about, so for your benefit here is Article 1 Section 23 of the Texas Constitution:

          Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

          John, please be so kind as to take the time to read all forty words of Section 23 and you will see that the right to keep and bear arms is granted as it is in the U.S. Constitution, and the Texas Constitution elaborates further by specifically addressing the power granted to the Legislature.

          Please understand John that Texans enjoy the PRIVILEGE to carry handguns and long guns whether a concealed carry license is applicable or not because the folks we elect to serve in the Texas Senate and House of Representatives have passed legislation that affords residents of the Lone Star State the PRIVILEGE to carry firearms with few restrictions.

          As I stressed earlier, you need to study up before you spout off because ignorance does nothing to protect the rights enumerated in the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 23 of the Texas Constitution

        • I am glad you can read the Texas Constitution, it seems someone must have explained it to you. Your comprehension of other simply worded statements seems non-existent.

  58. Evidently, you missed the protesters at the South loop on I-75 open carrying AR-15s pretty much every weekend for months. Whether the individual is carrying at “low ready” or not has nothing to do with whether or not what he is doing is Constitutional or legal in Georgia. Based on your threat to such an individual, it makes me question whether or not you should be in law enforcement in the State of Georgia at all.

  59. If it were I, I would carry the rifle empty with the bolt open and slung across my back. Why? Because manners. Because the point of the demonstration is to carry a gun AND not appear threatening to people who see “gun” and think “dead children.” That is how I get my message across.

    However, I still have a right to carry a rifle slung at low ready. I can understand why so many here say that rifle slung on back = pistol in holster, but it’s just not true. Pistol in holster: draw and pull the trigger. Rifle slung on back: fiddle with sling to get rifle in front, hoist rifle, insert mag, cycle charging handle, pull trigger. See? Low ready is much more akin to a holstered pistol a pistol is NOT a rifle, and saying “You would walk down the street carrying your pistol at low ready” is disingenuous. Low ready (yes, with your hand on the grip) is precisely how you carry a rifle. You don’t carry a rifle the way you carry a pistol. Apples and oranges.

    Do I think people going around carrying rifles (in any manner) makes any sense? No. Unless you’re making a point about how stupid it is that open carry of rifles is legal while pistols are not. Then go ahead and carry. I won’t judge you, even if you carry at low ready. Just be presntable. Get a haircut. Wear a clean shirt. Don’t be beligerant. Don’t be rude.

    Carry on.

  60. I understand what the LEOs here, and Jerry are saying.

    Of course OC long is legal, but the key is context, within the setting.
    Acting like an OCD jerk in public or in arguments here is not helping.
    If you can’t accept the definition of jerk from vastly more experienced gun owners, then you aren’t the right person to be demonstrating, representing all gun owners.

      • Regardless of what I or anyone else does, these people still “represent” gun owners every time they open carry in public. I support their right to do it, but wish they would put a little more thought into their actions and appearance. Jumping up and down, screaming about “rights” is all well and good, but image and public relations do matter. If the left can find enough voters, rights can disappear. We have seen that in several parts of the country already.

        • You are quite the foolish one if you let anyone on the street that shares some trait in common with you act as your representative. More so if you agree with such false perceptions. You would not agree with it in relation to color or sex or other things, why do so in relation to arms?

        • Some folks seem to not understand my statements. I do not agree with judging a group by one individual and never said I did. However, it is an unfortunate fact that some folks do. You can discount them all you want, call them fools, idiots whatever, but they do vote. That is my point. I also have stated that I fully support the individual right to carry as you please, but would ASK that people take into consideration how they appear to the general public (aka VOTERS). Open carrying an AK into sonic, while wearing camo pants and a tac vest is not winning us any friends (aka VOTES). That just seems like common sense to me, but what do I know…

        • “I do not agree with judging a group by one individual and never said I did. ” Uh, yea, that is what you are saying, adding several hundred more words to it does not change that.

        • @Kent: After years of presenting myself in a certain way in the representation of this group or that group, I sometimes allow myself get riled when I perceive a trend among those who own guns that amounts to gun snobbery, for lack of a better term. You were not engaged in that, IMHO, so I hope that my ranting did not imply that you were.

        • John in Ohio wrote; “Sure gun control laws can be enacted but they are also unconstitutional”. Man I didn’t know that John, could you cite the U.S. Supreme Court case law to clue in the rest of us who are not constitutional law scholars, I know residents of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington D.C. will be relieved once they get the news that oppressive anti-gun laws have been ruled unconstitutional and they can possess and/or carry firearms without restrictions.

        • to clue in the rest of us who are not constitutional law scholars

          You mean like Barry Soetoro? How’s that working out for ya?

          (The rest of your foolishness was answered in another comment.)

    • I’m not a jerk when I OC but I also represent only myself. I am not responsible for whatever the antis feel or think and I am not responsible for what gun owners feel or think. Obviously, some people represent groups and what-not. When I represent a specific group, I follow their guidelines on dress and behavior. If I cannot, I don’t walk for that group. However, like I wrote, much of my OCing is for me and me alone. Hell, most of the time I’m simply going about my daily life doing my thing.

      • John in Ohio, I appreciate that you open carry responsibly. However, saying you represent only yourself is not being realistic. Weather you accept it, or not, when you open carry in public, you ARE representing gun owners. Like it or not, that is a fact.

        • Calling it a fact doesn’t make it one. A black man does not represent all black men. A sports car driver doesn’t represent all sports car drivers. When one holds themselves out as representative of a group, then that person may or may not represent a group. Please show me precisely how this has become my responsibility when I am not calling myself a representative of a group. Don’t lay that shit on me. It’s not right to do so. I own my actions. You own yours. They own theirs.

          With all due respect, y’all have been fighting progressives so much that some of the Kool-Aid has apparently slipped into your systems. (No, I am not trying to insult someone. I’m using language to perhaps get people to think about it.) Progressives insist that gun owners make them “feel” a certain way. They lay that shit off on y’all and you argue against it. I’m stating right here, right now, that y’all are doing the same shit. When I do not hold myself out as representative of a group, I am not a representative. Just because someone says I am responsible for their feelings or thoughts does not mean that I am. Please explain how I am wrong because I would really like to know.

          One can argue politics, voting, etc but really, I’m not responsible for how they choose to vote. I’m a decent human being living my life. If it is under a microscope and that’s supposed to be our fault, then Heaven help us all. That’s an impossible life. A messiah and a saint, I am not and I don’t hold myself out as such.

        • I agree with your sentiment, but disagree on the reality. When the general public sees you open carrying, you are immediately identified as a gun owner. Some of them are hopefully smart enough to realize that you are not representative of every gun owner, but how you and I act, does reflect on the group as a whole. We may not like that, but IMO, it is a factor we should keep in mind.

        • And another thing… My bearing of arms is as basic as wearing clothes to my life. It has been this way for my entire adult life and part of my late adolescence. My right doesn’t depend on others liking it or not. Sure gun control laws can be enacted but they are also unconstitutional. I’ve lived long enough to have fought a lot in the struggle to restore Liberty. I’ve lived long enough to know that I must own my own behavior. I’ve also lived long enough to know not to try and own someone else’s.

          Politicians who make possible these gun control laws, people who keep voting them into office, people who cry out for gun control, gun owners who support gun control (background checks anyone?), court officers who help punish those accused of violating gun control laws, and law enforcement officers who enforce gun control laws own their actions. I don’t.

        • I do keep it in mind. However, I refuse to be held responsible for the actions and thoughts of another adult. The POTG must keep that in mind. Suggesting to others X, Y, and Z is a whole ‘nother animal from demanding that others X,Y,Z and subsequently trying to hold them responsible for the feelings, thoughts, and actions of another because X, Y, Z weren’t followed. I appreciate suggestions but not demands. I certainly don’t appreciate group-think that tries to blame shift. (I’m not pointing at you personally… this is a rant at a subgroup of gun owners. Frankly, I’m fed up with reading gun owners demanding that other gun owners MUST do this and that followed by blame shift and name calling. It places an unrealistic burden on the individual and is childish behavior.)

          A cop raised his voice. I feel that cop was abusive. That cop represented all cops. All cops are abusive.

          A NYC guy talked me down in a transaction. I feel that NYC guy was a crook. That guy represented all NYC people. All NYC people are crooks.

          A guy in a red car cut me off in traffic. I feel that red car driver is a jerk. That driver represented all red car drivers. All red car drivers are jerks.

          That might be what some people do but that’s not reality. That’s psychological dysfunction. Some are surrendering to an impossible task by trying to make others responsible for the thoughts, feelings, and actions of another. If the individual feels that all gun owners are this or that because of individual’s actions when they are not part of an organized group; protest or rally, then that’s their problem and not mine. They’re broken. I’m not obligated to fix them. I probably couldn’t anyway if I even gave a damn enough to try. It’s psychologically healthy to realize that one is not responsible for the feelings of another. It’s PSYCH101.

        • “That might be what some people do but that’s not reality. That’s psychological dysfunction. Some are surrendering to an impossible task by trying to make others responsible for the thoughts, feelings, and actions of another. If the individual feels that all gun owners are this or that because of individual’s actions when they are not part of an organized group; protest or rally, then that’s their problem and not mine. They’re broken. I’m not obligated to fix them. I probably couldn’t anyway if I even gave a damn enough to try. It’s psychologically healthy to realize that one is not responsible for the feelings of another. It’s PSYCH101.”

          Oop, there it is. Just because leftards are f**ked in the head does not mean I have to bow down to their mental illness, or fix them. And my BS call (below)is on Kent.

        • John in Ohio wrote; “Sure gun control laws can be enacted but they are also unconstitutional”. Man I didn’t know that John, could you cite the U.S. Supreme Court case law to clue in the rest of us who are not constitutional law scholars, I know residents of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington D.C. will be relieved once they get the news that oppressive anti-gun laws have been ruled constitutional and they can possess and/or carry firearms without restrictions.

        • John in Ohio wrote; “Sure gun control laws can be enacted but they are also unconstitutional”. Man I didn’t know that John, could you cite the U.S. Supreme Court case law to clue in the rest of us who are not constitutional law scholars, I know residents of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington D.C. will be relieved once they get the news that oppressive anti-gun laws have been ruled unconstitutional and they can possess and/or carry firearms without restrictions.

  61. 2hotel9 Call it what you want. It doesn’t change things. It’s like the NBA star who acts like a thug, and then says that he never claimed, or wanted to be a role model for kids. Does his disavowal change anything? No, kids still will emulate him whether he likes it or not. I know it’s not the ideal analogy, but I think you get the point, even if you don’t agree with it. Just my two cents…

    • And that is neither his fault or his responsibility. This is the kind of “fuzzy thinking” that has been f**king up America for decades.

      • I agree completely. But it is an unfortunate reality that there is a segment of the voting public that does think this way. How you can equate my pointing out an unfortunate fact, with my support of it is what confuses me. If I point out that there is a problem with drunk driving in the U.S., would that automatically make you believe that I supported driving drunk? Of course not. Genuinely confused how you can link the two…

        • It seems you identify yourself as one of those people who thinks “that way”. Saying there is a problem with drunk driving is a poor analogy. You made a blatantly obvious statement that these OC people represent “you and I”….big difference. Nobody ever would claim that drunk drivers represent all drivers. Get your sh*t straight.

        • Can you show me where I said that they do in fact represent us? What I did say, is that there is a segment of the population that will view them as being representative of all gun owners. Pretty sure I made that clear. I am satisfied that my sh*t is straight. Thank you for your concern, however. I really am not sure what part of this you disagree with…

          a. That there are people that will view the OCT guys as being representative of gun owners in general?
          b. That I wish they would consider the impact they are having by wearing camo, tac vests and AK’s into restaurants?
          c. That while I support their right to do all of the above, I personally disagree with it?

  62. Did you forget saying this?
    “John in Ohio, I appreciate that you open carry responsibly. However, saying you represent only yourself is not being realistic. Weather you accept it, or not, when you open carry in public, you ARE representing gun owners. Like it or not, that is a fact.”
    You keep trying to tap-dance around your own statements. I am so glad that not all gun owners represent me, since your words are trash.

      • Got in from a long, sh*tty day, started going through email and was going to respond and see that is unneeded. You been schooled.

        Lets us reiterate, though, here in the AM. “However, saying you represent only yourself is not being realistic. Weather you accept it, or not, when you open carry in public, you ARE representing gun owners. Like it or not, that is a fact.” This is the groupthink stupidity you posted and THEN defended, got called on and went into full on spin&twirl mode to attempt to deny having said and defended. Please keep going along to get along with America’s leftist enemies, I’m certain it will earn you a pass from them.

        Oh, and spare us the next rotation and don’t bother posting that you were just “playing devil’s advocate”. That is even lame-er than the groupthink crap.

        • No, actually what it means is that I stated some things which I think are common sense. That you disagree is your right. Schooled?? lol. I have yet to hear a response that disproves my points. And yes, I do believe in being able to have a civilized debate with people who disagree with me. In my opinion, when people resort to insults and name-calling, it simply proves the weakness of their own argument. If they had facts to support their position, it wouldn’t be necessary. I will let you have the last word, unless you decide to debate rather then attempt to insult…

        • Schooled. Smacked up. Kicked in the teeth and laughed at, not with. Go ahead, twirl&spin some more, the hilarity never ends.

        • Once again, your complete inability to present any type of logical rebuttal, is quite revealing. I will leave you to your attempts at playground bullying. Sad really…

  63. Low ready, rights and privileges, there’s a list of topics the Open Carry Obsessed who frequent or troll this forum don’t know or even want to know about.

    • How correct you are….like the fools who think that by not exercising their God given rights they are preserving them….they just don’t realize they have already sacrificed them into the realm of privilege.

      • Too funny Paul G, in your delusional open carry obsessed world, something you first mistakenly claimed was a constitutional right, that in truth is a PRIVILEGE, has now somehow morphed into a God given right. I’m sure your compatriots in the Sovereign Citizen movement agree 100%.

        • Improperly mixing terms and deciding to assign incorrect labels to people is the best you can do? By the way, defense is a God given right, no matter how you spin things lamely.

        • Lamely spinning your argument from open carry as a God given right to defense as a God given right, that’s pretty slick Paul G.

        • something you first mistakenly claimed was a constitutional right, that in truth is a PRIVILEGE, has now somehow morphed into a God given right

          Please elaborate about this privilege which you assert has now somehow morphed into a right. I’m genuinely curious.

        • Well John, the only place concealed and open carry privileges have morphed into rights is in the fantasy world you and Paul G have for some reason chosen to dwell in. But for your benefit, once again, here is a basic legal principle 101 description that the two of you will no doubt continue to live in denial of.

          A right such as our 2nd amendment right is something that cannot be taken away without an arduous change of the Federal or a State Constitution and cannot accomplished by a legislative body simply passing legislation.

          A PRIVILEGE is something that can be given or taken away by legislation. When concealed carry became State law after the 74th session of the Texas Legislature in 1995, residents of the Lone Star State gained the PRIVILEGE to be licensed for carry of a concealed handgun. Texans gained another PRIVILEGE when the 82nd Legislature in 2011 amended the Penal Code and made it legal to have a concealed handgun in the vehicle without being licensed for concealed carry.

          Just as easily as a State Legislature can pass a law granting a PRIVILEGE, they can pass one taking it away, that’s why liberal dominated States like the Peoples Republic of New Jersey are able to pass ridiculously restrictive guns laws that will never be implemented by legislation in gun rights states like Texas.

          And John in Ohio, I’m still waiting for elaboration on that U.S. Supreme Court decision case law to back up your earlier statement on constitutional law in which you wrote “Sure gun control laws can be enacted but they are also unconstitutional”. Before you spout off with yet another low information uneducated response, let me clue you in, the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

        • You seem to be relying on the completion backwards principle…perhaps from thinking out the wrong end. Rights keep being converted into privileges, because of people like you.

        • @Ted Unlis: It appears to me that you are perhaps hesitant to answer directly and would rather obfuscate with many words. In this reply, I will endeavor to answer in the briefest terms possible.

          It may come as a surprise to you but for much of this nation’s history, openly bearing of arms was considered the act of an honest man whereas bearing them concealed was viewed as the potential act of a criminal in some parts. There is much evidence but I will give you that which you specifically request. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) 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. Of course, I disagree with Judicial Review on its face which I answered in other comments before. (And yet you still ask the same tired questions. Hmm.)

          A right such as our 2nd amendment right is something that cannot be taken away without an arduous change of the Federal or a State Constitution and cannot accomplished by a legislative body simply passing legislation.

          A right cannot be taken away. Rights are unalienable. Governments might infringe but the individual is still the possessor of those rights.

          A PRIVILEGE is something that can be given or taken away by legislation. When concealed carry became State law after the 74th session of the Texas Legislature in 1995, residents of the Lone Star State gained the PRIVILEGE to be licensed for carry of a concealed handgun. Texans gained another PRIVILEGE when the 82nd Legislature in 2011 amended the Penal Code and made it legal to have a concealed handgun in the vehicle without being licensed for concealed carry.

          I’m not in Texas. But, you are clearly stating that concealed carry is treated as a privilege in Texas. I agree that it is treated as a privilege in the State of Texas. I didn’t disagree with you about that so what is your point?

          Just as easily as a State Legislature can pass a law granting a PRIVILEGE, they can pass one taking it away, that’s why liberal dominated States like the Peoples Republic of New Jersey are able to pass ridiculously restrictive guns laws that will never be implemented by legislation in gun rights states like Texas.

          Have I stepped into the Twilight Zone? How is this evidence against what I’ve written?

          And John in Ohio, I’m still waiting for elaboration on that U.S. Supreme Court decision case law to back up your earlier statement on constitutional law in which you wrote “Sure gun control laws can be enacted but they are also unconstitutional”.

          Already answered in another comment:
          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Judicial review was a power usurped. http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

          Before you spout off with yet another low information uneducated response, let me clue you in, the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

          No shit. Really??? Well golly, who woulda thunk?!?! (That’s all sarcasm there.)

          The Supreme Court is not greater than our Constitution. Indeed, our Constitution created the Supreme Court.

          ————————–

          This is set apart to make sure that what I originally commented about is crystal clear. You were spitting and sputtering against open carry. In Ohio concealed carry is currently considered by the State as a privilege that can be licensed, restricted, or even prohibited and open carry is currently considered by the State as a right that cannot be infringed. I don’t really believe that either, concealed or open are a privilege; both are of the right to keep and bear arms. However, when a state infringes upon one part with a licensing or permit system, then that becomes the exercise of a privilege in the eyes of the law and much of the public. Not a damned word that you’ve replied with contradicts that either. Stop wasting my time. I won’t keep replying to your nonsense.

        • Well John in Ohio, I hate to keep calling you out as a dumb@$$, but I must point out that the D.C. v Heller decision had absolutely nothing to with concealed or open carry in the District of Columbia, it specifically addressed the total ban on the POSSESSION of handguns in D.C. and allowed residents to POSSESS handguns in their homes.

          The rest of the oppressive restrictions on lawful gun owners in D.C. are still in place because there is no Supreme Court decision that makes State or local gun control law unconstitutional. It is still illegal for a D.C. resident to purchase any firearm without first obtaining a purchase permit and it is still illegal to possess a firearm in D.C. that is not registered with the police. There are no PRIVLEGES in D.C. for concealed or open carry and to do so is a felony. The assault weapon ban and magazine capacity restriction are still in place and are felony offenses as well.

          I know in your world you wish State and local gun control laws were unconstitutional, but wishing doesn’t make it so, it takes a Supreme Court decision, and none exist. If a right is not specifically asserted and defined by the Federal or a State constitution then it is not a constitutional right. No State has amended their Constitution to make concealed or open carry a constitutional right, Ohio included, I know you wish it were true but it is not. Your repetitive recitation of the 2nd amendment won’t alter the reality of current gun control laws, and your lame attempt to pass off the link http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html as case law is asinine and delusional.

        • But the second amendment does positively assert a right. Whether you like it or not. That right includes “bearing arms”, in an uninfringed manner. Simple English.

        • @Ted Unlis: I didn’t try to pass that link off as case law, dipshit. You pick and choose what you want to answer and then spew forth. I have no problem with differing opinions but you, my challenged friend, are either a troll or a moron. Either way, I won’t waste time on you. Spin your wheels all that you want. I won’t be replying. Over the decades, I’ve seen your type come and go. *yawn*

        • Paul G you like John from Ohio continue to pretend that the judicial branch of government has no authority to interpret the constitution, but your repetitive assertions are simply not grounded in fact.

          There are no Federal or State constitutional amendments or case law that define and equate concealed or open carry as a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, and if there were a Supreme Court decision that did that, all of the ridiculous anti-gun legislation in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington D.C. would be null and void.

          Pretending and repeating to yourself that any state or local law which restricts or bans concealed or open carry is unconstitutional might give you the strangely false sense of security you desire, but living in a fantasy world does nothing to combat determined efforts of the anti-gun radical left.

        • Please Ted, enlighten us and show us where the constitution gave scotus the power to interpret the constitution. Look hard. The court is not allowed to violate the constitution and delegate itself powers it is not granted.
          Then look up “infringe”…it doesn’t mean what you think.

        • Well Paul G, once again you offer lame and uneducated rabidity for an argument. Up to this point I had assumed you were just another unfortunate low information slug who screwed off and slept during high school civics class, now I realize it’s just as likely you’re a piss ignorant kid who is still in or just quit high school, either way, it’s obvious you haven’t had the benefit of a good education. So bubba, once again here is some info you won’t read that any 15 year old should be able to comprehend;

          From University of Missouri website; http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/supremecourtintro.html :

          ” The Supreme Court takes its powers from Article III of the Constitution. Article III, §1 provides that “the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court”

          ” As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and INTERPRETOR of the Constitution.”

        • So you don’t have an answer? I didn’t think so. Uneducated…..speak for yourself, actually I guess you already are. You didn’t even try and invoke Marbury v. Madison. I learned about that in 8th grade….I guess maybe you are the one who never got that far in school. Especially with your penchant for ad hominem attacks when you know you have nothing else.
          Judicial review is not in the constitution. The court is not granted the ability to interpret the document which vests them with their powers. The court is not empowered to de facto write law through interpretation. Sorry, you prove your own inanity.
          http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
          Article III
          Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

          Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

          In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

          The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

          Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

          The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

          Darn, it really isn’t in there! Who’d a thunk it?

        • Paul G if you want to believe that the United States Supreme Court lacks legal authority to interpret the constitution, stick with that if it helps you make it through the day.

          Perhaps you should prove the point by traveling to Washington D.C. in possession of handgun and defy prosecution with your superior knowledge of constitutional law.

    • Yes, Tedii, it is amazing how ignorant you are. Please keep proving it, laughing at your stupid crap is assisting my morning cardio set.

      • You know hotel, a lot of this would be funny if not for the alarming fact that hard headed low information folks like the Open Carry Obsessed play into the hands of a radical left agenda hell-bent to fundamentally change gun laws in the United States.

        Supreme Court decisions matter and uneducated shallow rants only reinforce the liberal lies and spin that the stereotypical gun owner looks like Larry the Cable Guy and totes a black rifle to the coffee shop every morning.

        Responsible gun owners have reason to worry when you consider there are four liberal Justices on U.S. Supreme Court today and we’re only one future liberal Justice away from a judicial activist push for the Court to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment with a liberal 5-4 decision to force the fundamental change.

        • Yep, scotus decisions matter, even when they are dead wrong or outside of the scope of their authority. How about the latest one regarding straw purchases where both purchaser and end recipient are legal, where the ruling against cited the use of background checks as de facto registration. Can’t legally buy your spouse a Christmas present firearm anymore apparently.

        • Poor little Tedii, can’t prove any of the leftarded sh*t it spews. Her mommie is SO disappointed.

        • Yes, you are obsessed with stripping Americans of our Constitutionally protected, Supreme Court affirmed, God given rights. We. Get. It. You hate America almost as much as you hate yourself.

          So, go ahead. Provide all of your incontrovertible proof that the Constitution does not say what it says and the Supreme Court has not ruled as it has repeatedly ruled. Go for it. I got a few minutes to waste laughing at you before I am outta here for the day and just can’t wait to see what comical sh*t you spew this time.

        • I have come to the inescapable conclusion that 2hotel9 is simply a troll, who delights in posting insults but is unable to put together a rational argument. I, for one, will no longer indulge his little games since he doesn’t even attempt to use logic.

        • Ahhhh, poor little leftards!?!? Your America hate and leftarded sh*t spew was not embraced by actual American citizens. Wow. Let me help you stupid c**ts out. You are the enemy. Eat sh*t and die.

  64. Paul G, I think SCOTUS pointed out in this decision that the “gift” provision did not come into play in this case. The buyer did not indicate on the form that the firearm was a gift, and signed the statement that the firearm was for his personal use. I don’t see any restriction (yet) on “gifting” a firearm, coming from this ruling. Although, if Obama can figure out a way to do it, I am sure he will…

    • It’s not just Barry. Government will take as much power as the People allow. That is the nature of government. It was like this before King Barry and will continue after him. The American People have allowed far too much already. Barry has come and may go, he is yet another soft tyrant. If he makes a full court press then, hopefully, the People will finally know that enough is enough. If he doesn’t then the slow strangulation of Liberty will continue with the next petty tyrant. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

      • Absolutely agree. Don’t remember who said it, but someone was asked if they thought that America could survive the presidency of Obama. His answer was he had no doubt America could survive Obama, his concern was if America could survive a population that would elect and re-elect Obama. That is also what scares me. I think this country is very near the tipping point, where there are nearly enough people on gov’t assistance to keep voting in those who promise to keep providing it.

Leave a Reply

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