Previous Post
Next Post

Texas is days away from legalized open carry (for CHL holders). In the run-up to that blessed event, the Houston Police have published an OC Q&A on the website. The first question asserts the cops’ “right” to stop an otherwise law-abiding open carrier to ask for identification – which is clearly unconstitutional – because “constitutional carry did not pass.” The rest of the post is fascinating. Especially the cops’ advice to people who see someone open carrying and get an attack of the gun control vapors. Like this . . .

Question: If I see a person open carrying a handgun, should I call the police?
Answer: Yes you can call the police, but before you call, observe how the person is acting. If they are acting suspicious, or enter a building such as a school, then please give us a call. But, if they are simply at a gas station filling up their car, then they are probably a law abiding citizen who is legally open carrying.

So the Houston police advise the general public to use common sense when deciding whether or not an open carrier is a law-abiding citizen, but they reserve the “right” to interrogate armed citizens regardless. Just because they can. Nice. And what’s a building “such as a school,” exactly? Did you know TX OC’ers can carry into a police station? Good luck with that.

Interesting that the Houston po-po use an OC putting a tiger in his tank as an example of a time to “stand down.” I guess bad guys don’t have cars, or don’t buy gas if they do. (Straw gas purchasers?) A better example: when OC’ers are walking down the street. At night.

On the positive side . . .

Question: What advice would you give to someone who is feeling anxious or intimidated in an open carry environment?
Answer: Open carry is going to be something that everyone will have to get used to. Initially it will be weird to see someone carrying a handgun in the grocery store, but it is important to know that the people who are open carrying a gun are law abiding citizens and are not there to intimidate or hurt you.

And here’s the best bit . . .

Question: Some organizations that are in opposition to open carry, have said that if they see someone openly carrying a handgun, they will call 911 and say that person is being aggressive and threatening people with the weapon. How will the police handle situations like this.
Answer: The police will act with caution when approaching the person, they will collect the facts, and when it is found that this person was doing nothing wrong, the investigation will be turned towards the person who made the false 911 call.

Take that CSGV – the gun control group calling for members to SWAT open carriers. And God bless Texas for heading in the right direction on open carry. [h/t PS]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. If the swatter pleads ignorance or general fear, nothing will happen to them; the lefties will support them and “demand” the release without charges of anyone “acting for the common good”. Especially in the larger cities, where the dumbass/pro-victim density is high.

    • Yes, bear in mind this is the city that’s sent Sheila Jackson Lee to Washington 11 times running. The same Sheila Jackson Lee that asked the NASA scientists if the Mars rover found the moon landing and made a speech about the two Vietnams living side by side in peace.

    • Likely nothing will happen to them–but they probably would not be counting on getting a visit from the po-po themselves, which will take a lot of the “fun” out of the whole thing. Still PO’ed about the PD’s obvious disregard for clear 4th Amendment law. If licensed “open carry” is legal, then seeing a person carrying a handgun as provided by law (i.e. holstered) is no more indication that he/she may be doing something illegal by not having a license than observing someone driving a car is an indication that they may be driving without a license.

      • Indeed, even if no charges are filed against the SWATter, a visit to their house by the police will very likely put an end to their making such calls in the future. The boys at CSGV are conveniently forgetting to tell their handful of low-information followers about that little detail.

      • Plus that person who did the swat call is now on the cops radar. How many more calls before the pd gets serious about a legal bitch slap?

        • They’re convinced that if they pester the cops enough, the cops will pressure legislators to change the law. They’re partly correct, except it’ll be the nuisance 911 laws that change. Into felonies.

      • @ Another Robert

        ”…seeing a person carrying a handgun as provided by law (i.e. holstered) is no more indication that he/she may be doing something illegal by not having a license than observing someone driving a car is an indication that they may be driving without a license.”

        Exactly: Good guys going about their business should be of no concern to ‘normal’ folks who don’t develop heart palpations at the sight of a person acting unthreateningly minding their own business who happens to be carrying a holstered sidearm. Hoplophobes will just have to adjust and learn to distinguish between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun. The added situational awareness for such non-gun people will likely be of some benefit to them in the long run.

        Bad actors on the other hand are hardly going to want to draw attention to themselves and encourage inquiry from The Law by open carrying a pistola. In addition crooks/gangsters are unlikely to have a holster for their handgun leading to wary interest by an informed observer such as the Local Yokel on duty…or off. In public, these bad actors are going to keep their guns out of sight…until they’re ready to use them to commit a crime.

        Ain’t normalization great?

        I can’t wait for all the distortion, whooping and hooting that will come from the antis, the Dems and the anti-gun media when the first open carry incident – of any sort, innocent or otherwise – occurs.

      • only flaw i can find with that reasoning is if, say a smart criminal (they exist) decides he wants to have his gun handy to shoot someone, all he needs to say is “hey, i have an open carry permit” and by your logic, the police just have to fuck off, because he SAID he has on. he may not be doing anything criminal at that moment, but who’s to say that he has no criminal intent later? saying you have an OC license, or acting unsuspiciously at *that* moment, doesnt mean you have the permit. so if an officer asks to see yours, whats the big deal? just show it to him and go on your happy way, instead of sitting there arguing about your “rights” for hours, having more cops called for backup because at that moment, you ARE acting suspciously and wasting loads more time than if you just showed your id/permit and went. i never understood the stubborn refusal of some people to just make everything easier for everyone involved. but hey, as you would likely respond, it’s your right to do that. if that principle means so much to you, just to thumb your nose at the police just doing their jobs, well, that’s a risk YOU can take and good luck not getting shot.

        • “i never understood the stubborn refusal of some people to just make everything easier for everyone involved.”

          Yeah, like those troublesome negroes that wouldn’t go to the back of the bus and make it easier for everyone involved. Let’s not forget those pesky Jews in Europe. We can’t leave out those uppity American Colonists either! You don’t understand it because you don’t have what it takes to be free. You posess a slave mentality. Keep your chains… just don’t try to force the rest of us to wear them too.

        • If they have criminal intent, but, as of yet, have not done anything criminal, then they are not yet criminals, so they should not be treated as such. Pre-crime is the most totalitarian of excuses and can be used to strip all manner of rights away. Don’t slide down that slippery slope.
          I’m certain that most people, even those who strenuously object, will show their ID cards; that isn’t the point. The point is that the police should not have the right to require that they be shown; there is no probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, to think that any crime is being committed, so there should be no imposition by police on the, apparently, law abiding citizen.

    • “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” How many times have you heard that?
      Apparently the fine progressives of Houston will be hearing it a lot, if they don’t appreciate the consequences of their antipathy toward legal Open Carry. In Austin, not holding my breath waiting for Austin PD to train 911 to ask the right questions.

      • Oddly enough, Acevedo has said he doesn’t think his men will be confronting open carriers without some reason other than just open carrying.

        • Pretty sure you’re right. Could be the guy who is responsible for training the officers on some of the legal issues they face.

      • Hell, for progressives ignorance of the law is a tactic. Look at all the gun control arguments made based on ignoring the restrictions fur buying a gun already: “Buying a gun should be as hard as buying a car.”

        Blah, blah, blah, yakkety shmakkety.

    • I believe this will not be true.

      Police and fire depts do not enjoy false alarms, and will charge a “service fee” for false alarms which begin to show consistent pattern.

      Hell, in Tarrant county (west side of DFW) if you have a cow or horse which becomes unfenced and gets out into the road, the Sheriff will load up a truck and trailer, and a horse mounded Deputy will come out and round up your animals for you.

      Then about a week later you’ll get, if my memory services me right, a bill from the county for about $1200.

      • That’s how it works in Houston with literal false alarms. At a business, anyway, if your fire alarm goes off errantly and the department responds, you get a ticket for that.

        • Yeah, cause everybody knows firemen hate riding on firetrucks. It has nothing to do with becoming a fireman. A false alarm means a new computer for the DA’s office.

        • That’s callous, Model.

          Quite a few computers could have been purchased with the $225,000 the City paid in 2010 to settle a wrongful death lawsuit after two HFD trucks collided at an intersection and killed a woman standing on the corner. That doesn’t even count the litigation expenses and costs to repair the trucks. Dallas has been hit with similar lawsuits from crash victims, too.

          Now, these happen to have been legitimate emergency calls. The point remains, though, that any emergency call is inherently dangerous, whether it prompts speeding fire trucks or amped up, armed police.

          Lives and resources are at risk just responding to the call. So there should be some sanction against faulty or malicious alarms.

        • Model– Think about it this way. The FD responds to a false alarm on one side of town. Meanwhile there’s a REAL fire on the other side of town at the same time. FD is busy responding to a non-event which delays their response to the real thing. The potential for property and life to be lost skyrockets the longer it takes the FD to show up. So yeah, a false alarm can be a pretty serious thing.

        • All of my experience with FD is with public buildings, courthouses, schools…etc. Local fire marshal gets on his high horse and starts throwing his weight around just cause he can. Some buildings need fire alarms and some should be sprinkled. Its the law/regulation ok, but then he goes on and requires monitoring service ($) or direct connection to FD ($) so they get excited every time something triggers the alarm. Then he throws a hissy when somebody on site disarms the alarm -no fire, no smoke, a little smell -just a heater turned on for the first time this Fall. Next time he gets all p!issy when a mere civilian doesn’t disarm the alarm but doesn’t call him in his predefined window to inform him of the issue either. Next up are his threats of fines and citations -the result of situations he created. I dunno, I’m probably a bit biased concerning the self righteous indignation. I try to conduct all my business outside of city limits when possible.

        • “All of my experience with FD is with public buildings, courthouses, schools…etc. Local fire marshal gets on his high horse and starts throwing his weight around just cause he can.”

          Fire Marshals are more politician than firefighter in much the same way Police Chiefs are more politician than cop.

          It’s a LONG road going from how FM’s throw their weight around in policy meetings to rank-n-file firefighters “like to ride on fire trucks” not caring about false alarms.

        • I know a couple of the local firefighters -went to school with one of them. They’ve talked about getting to a building a 11pm with no key access. They didn’t feel like breaking down the door to the office building because they were pretty sure it was a false alarm. They griped a bit about not having access to the building but never about the ride on the truck. They said they’ll bust the glass out of the door next time if they can’t get in -false alarm or not. They didn’t really care about the fines levied against business or anybody else. They’re under the impression their dept. will never see a dime of it.

      • Getting loose livestock contained and off public roads is a different entirely from hyperventilating people-sheep at the sight of a handgun holstered on the hip of non-law enforcement.
        If you think open carry will be a non-issue, and hope you are right, tell me why so many Youtube videos of LEOs harassing long gun owners out in public with rifle/shotguns, which already enjoyed legal OC status in Texas already?

        • I’m aware it is not the best analogy, however the point still stand. I don’t see this blowing up on anyone, but false alarmist.

          The long gun folks have a different row to hoe. Long guns frighten people more and, frankly, are just more noticeable. I don’t agree with it, but that is the way I see it.

    • I am pretty sure that the police are getting tired of being manipulated by false 911 calls. At some point there will be a strong reaction by law enforcement to dissuade people from making those false calls. At a very basic level it is a waste of resources and puts law enforcement into the position of going on false calls by hoaxers. Imagine a situation where law enforcement has deployed resources in a false 911 and committed to a “lock down” situation, while simultaneously having a real 911 emergency. A lot of departments are now down on officers and having it spread thinner by anti gun zealots bent on creating a crisis where there is none. I think they are going to get a wake up call if they try their ill conceived games.

      • “At a very basic level it is a waste of resources and puts law enforcement into the position of going on false calls by hoaxers.”

        No only that, but there is a very real “officer safety” issue as well.

        As they answer too many of these hoax calls, they get complacent. Then, when a REAL MWAG call comes in…a dude committing a real crime…their guard is down.

        Cops have many reasons to fight against this SWATting nonsense, from resource allocation problems to cop psychology to…well, at it’s most fundamental it is “intent to do harm” on the part of the SWATter which constitutes the basis of any number of crimes against persons.

    • “If the swatter pleads ignorance or general fear, nothing will happen to them; ”

      The name of the caller will be public record, if it is found later the caller previously claimed they will SWAT OCers, the OCer can then have the SWAT’er charged with a felony.

      IE; “If I see an open carrier, I’m calling the cops and claiming they’re threatening me…” On Facebook.

      • Here’s hoping you’re correct, but I think you are seriously underestimating the sheer amount of whining, sniveling and sheep-like bleating that will take place.

  2. Open carry Texas had a problem with this at a gunfreeUH event a few weeks ago. It would be good to know if this language is a result of that and/or efforts by OCT.

    • It’s not due to them, they’re the ones who caused all the problems. You might think they are some kind of folks heroes but they are really just troublemakers. That business has spread around the country because those Chipotle ninjas made the news. Where there was no bad talk about open carry before, now there is because all the sudden people think that’s how open carriers act. We don’t need those types, they just give ammo to the antis and overzealous police.

      • Assuming there was “no bad talk” about OC in a state where OC was very deliberately excluded from the CHL bill in, what, 1994?, seems a bit of exaggeration. Why do you suppose it was not included then? And why has it taken another 20 years?

      • Facts are a terrible thing:

        (1) The Chipotle guys had the permission of the manager to be there.

        So, it was the anti-gunner HYPE (and, incidentally, the POTG jumping on their bandwagon) that has caused any backlash from that, not the ‘event’ itself.

        (2) OC passed in TX, so your assertion that they somehow turned public opinion against OC is not supported by the facts.

        Go ahead, make the nonsensical, illogical AND irrational claim that OC passed “despite” them…just because you believe something does not make it correct.

  3. misleading title if the ho-po-po are incapable of tracing the source of the swat communication.

    is there any way that somebody can anonymously inform the ho-po-po that somebody with a roscoe is blundering around in public?

    i’d think they’d be able to easily trace the origin of the message that started the chain of circumstance. i know about anonymyzing tools, but in that case what would be the agency’s policy on prescribed response to the callout?

    getting too old to keep up with all the latest pronouncements, tools and sops.

    • A couple of officers have addressed this on TTAG before. The police have developed some experience with this technique and picked up on some red flags that suggest a given call may be B.S.

      It’s not foolproof and some P.D.s may just be looking for an excuse to harrass open carriers, anyway. Still, at some point a combination of public embarrassment, wasted resources, perhaps lawsuits, some prosecution of SWATers, or even just growing public familiarity with OC will dry up these calls. Until then, be careful, as there is great opportunity for someone to get hurt in the process.

      • Seems like a few prosecutions for filing a false police report would make this game pretty unpopular pretty quick. If the source cannot be identified, ignore the report, that was easy.

    • You are thinking about sophisticated computer geeks who know how to use the system. Your typical open carry swatter inspired by CSGV is going to whip out their cellphone and dial away. Instant record. They probably won’t charge them but the cops won’t like it so they are going to put the screws to them to teach them not to do it. Nothing like getting cuffed and brought down to the station to teach someone not to do that.

  4. Overall, this seems quite reasonable to be, the one exception being that line about entering a school. If someone is acting suspicious, regardless of whether the are carrying a gun, the police can (and should) investigate—that’s their job.

  5. Can’t help it. As I sit here in the Frontier Restaurant, OC’ing my Sig 10mm Elite in The Land Of Enchantment, otherwise known as the state of New Mexico, without a need for a permit or license; I read of the great state of Texas where Texan’s need a license to practice a right.

    For OC’ing a pistol.

    In Texas.

    What a strange world we live in.

    • I have to admit, it’s pretty darn weird to me too. One of the consequences of being on the losing side in the War Between the States, I’m afraid (The initial prohibition on handgun carry was enacted by the Republican Reconstruction gov’t to prevent ex-Confederates from intimidating newly-enfranchised blacks. Subsequent Democrat post-Reconstruction gov’ts kept in in place to help keep those same blacks disarmed.)

      • Yep. That was the reason used. But the real answer to returning confederates OC’ing to intimidate blacks would have been to make sure the blacks were OC’ing as well. But that would have been really empowering blacks. That is something government does not want. Gun control is never about crime control. It is always about controlling law abiding citizens by disempowering them.

        • You got that right. But the Reconstruction Repubss did create a black “state police” force, IIRC. Not sure if they were armed with firearms, tho. Pretty sure the carpetbaggers really didn’t want anybody but the .gov armed, at any rate.

    • Oh hush. Get twenty of your buddies ranting and raving up and down the street and you, too, would get hassled for unlawful assembly and ticketed for parading without a permit. So much for your right to peaceable assembly!

      Hell, you even need a permit in Sante Fe to put up a sign. So much for your right to free speech!

      Oh no! You need a permit to conduct a yard sale! It’s a police state! You need a license and proof of rabies vaccination for your dog! Here comes Cheka! Good grief.

      • I think that’s the point I’m making J-H. I don’t need to parade up and down the street OC’ing a rifle with twenty other like me while scaring the locsls to protest a right being denied me.

        Like OC’ing a pistol with out a license.

        In Texas.

    • As I sit in my Ford truck, gasing up, CCing my G19 appendix, w/extra mag, and (BUG) LCP on my ankle, I look out over the small town shopping plaza, with various entertainment and food at my fingertips. I take in the still slightly green grass, with majesty trees from the woods swaying in the winds from the back drop of my small Texas town. I then think about the wooded trails and the plentiful fishing at lake by my home, while also, reflecting on my last visit to the vastly dry and dusty landscape of NM and ponder… why the f*ck would anyone want to live in the dusty a$$ NM desert?

      • Well, I have to admit, I kind of liked New Mexico when my son was going to school there and I went to visit him every so often. I even like the West Texas desert, tho I live in the Piney Woods and don’t really care to leave just now. But I realize there is no accounting for taste… 😉

      • That’s part of our secret plan ROHC to keep out all of them Texans and other Califonicators that would ruin our state like they did in Colorado and Oregon.

        All people see when they drive through is dry desert and sage brush. But once you get away from the freeways, you find all of the other environments of high plains grass lands, the alpine forests, Pinon and juniper forests and the Ponderosa pine environmental belts.

        Now that I am here. Everyone else can go to Texas or Colorado. Please.

        Ummm, well no, best if they just stay on the west or east coasts. I wouldn’t wish anymore progressives on anyone, even Texans. 🙂

  6. RF, Cops will always have every right to ask even under constitutional carry. They have no right to demand absent some reasonable suspicion, even with the CHL requirement.

    • That’s the problem with open carry by permit only. Since carrying in the open requires a license anybody who is open carrying is essentially giving probable cause for a cop to stop and ask politely to see your permit. I live in a permit-less open carry environment but when I cross the River into Minnesota I won’t open carry for that reason.

      Just saying so don’t shoot the messenger

      • That is not giving police probable cause any more than driving your car across that river gives police probable cause to pull you over and demand to see your driver’s license and ownership paperwork for your car.

        • See the court case cited below. At least one judge says you are wrong.

          But in any case, since only a small percentage of the population has a permit statistically speaking the is a reasonable chance that an individual is carry without a permit so there is probable cause to ask. Your comparison with driving is invalid since possessing a drivers license and owning are nearly universal.

          As I said, don’t shoot the messenger.

      • Again–no, they don’t, not any more than driving gives the cops “reasonable suspicion” (that’s the standard for a “stop”, not “probable cause”) to believe you are driving without a license. There is simply no observable activity going on that isn’t completely consistent with lawful activity. And if that’s the case, legally there is no grounds to detain you and demand ID, etc. They can ask all they want without detaining you, but you are not obliged to stop and answer until they “detain” you. And exercising your right to keep moving and not answer is also not grounds for “reasonable suspicion”.

      • I’ve been Driving While Male for decades. That alone is not probable cause to stop me and extract a DNA sample for comparison to every rape kit collected down at HPD, or to haul me in for lineup I.D.

        The constitutional standard is “probable cause”, not “theoretically conceivable, however remote, but still possible cause.”

        • “Reasonable suspicion” for a stop. “Probable cause” for an arrest, a search/arrest warrant, or an indictment. They are different standards.

      • Bingo, tdiinva! Once one takes that license to bear arms, they are exercising a privilege. It’s one of the big problems of licenses or otherwise seeking permission from government to exercise an individual natural right. It gives legitimacy to the government’s unconstitutional claim to such authority. If left in place long enough, the courts tend to view it as an estoppel to arguments as to its unconstitutionality. The fact that we never vigorously fought and refused initial federal gun control is why we have this mess today. If we fight without ceasing on every encroachment on the right to keep and bear arms, the courts can never view it as accepted by the People.

    • That is NOT what the judge said during this presentation. Their position seems to be that the mere carrying of a handgun openly is enough to warrant a Terry stop.

      • Listen to the question at 30:26 and the chief’s answer at 31:26. The chief SPECIFICALLY states that openly carrying is enough to detain a person in a Terry stop. Judge says same thing at 33:30.

        • I understand that. I just find it mind boggling that a sitting judge AND the police chief basically don’t know shit about the constitutional boundaries of a Terry Stop, and they are basically wrongly advising the public on their rights.

      • The judge is wrong. I’m not being an ass here, the law is really clear: if the observed activity is completely consistent with lawful behavior, it does not constitute grounds for a stop. In this specific instance, the cop would have to be able to articulate a specific reason why he believed you did not have a license to go with your pistol. to stop someone just to see if they are obeying the law or not is the archetypical “fishing expedition, which the 4A was in part aimed at preventing.

        • Correct. If an individual appeared to be under age 18, but was open carrying (not in a hunting context), that would look suspicious to me, were I an officer, and would prompt a stop. That’s done daily at bars and liquor stores.

        • It doesn’t prevent drunk-driving checkpoints, so it probably won’t prevent this. (Not saying it shouldn’t, just that it won’t.)

        • “It doesn’t prevent drunk-driving checkpoints, so it probably won’t prevent this. (Not saying it shouldn’t, just that it won’t.)

          Pretty sure the courts have ruled that for the check points to not be violations of “unreasonable seizure,” they have to (or are supposed to) follow a formal protocol for who they stop…such as everyone, every third car, whatever. (I guess usually it’s everyone).

          If a cop just randomly stops one OC-er and he does not stop EVERY OC-er he sees and cannot quote a written protocol for which OC-ers to stop, he’s probably going to have a hard time using the case law accumulated in support of check points to justify his stop.

          I am not a lawyer, but that was how it was explained to me in Cop School by a lawyer. If that’s wrong, please one of the lawyer types correct it.

      • IANAL either, but have understood for a long time that singling out a person for attention requires probable cause, whether carrying a gun or driving a car. If you are going to stop EVERY car to ask for licenses, etc, I think that is legal, but you cannot stop only Chevys, only pickups, or only black drivers.

        • “reasonable suspicion”, not “probable cause”, which is a higher standard. But you are right. When I was a kid, “license checks” for drivers were common, the cops would set up a roadblock and ask every driver who came along if he had his DL. But the courts have long since determined that such roadblocks were prohibited by the 4th. You have to have an articulable, individualized reason to believe criminal activity is afoot to make a stop, whether someone is driving or walking. There is no reason that the same rationale would not apply to CHL “checks”.

        • OOPS–I guess I meant you are mostly right. But even stopping all the cars has finally been recognized as a 4A violation, IINM.

  7. A 94 minute video of “information” that could be summed up in less than 3 minutes.

    1. Open carry – it’s the law – deal with it.
    2. Unless somebody is doing something bad – mind your own business.
    3. What do I do if I’m scared or uncomfortable? Grow up and put your big boy pants on, mind your own business and walk away.
    4. If you call 911 and it’s a false call and you’re wasting our time – plan on YOUR day being ruined. Mind your own business.

    That’s it.

  8. Isn’t the first part of the firSt question incorect? It was my understanding that they did indeed remove wording strictly for biding officers from asking for is if no crime has been committed and that it has been ruled by many courts that an officer can not demand Id if now illegal act has occured. Now in the video they kept using the word ask but then made it sound like you are required to turn over when asked.

  9. Whatever Texans-deal with it. It’ll pass in time. The occasional open-carrier gets(maybe) swatted in Indiana. I know I listened to people freaking out and asked them why they were so upset-and I got NO good answer. “A bad guy will grab it!” No one seems to get it that criminals don’t open carry. Especially in big plastic retaining holsters-like COPS.

  10. This is one situation that has me sitting on the fence. In the old days I used to see people with open carry and no one paid much attention to them but that was then, not now. With crazies shooting up places just about every other week and most are white citizens not Muslims. Now when open carry goes into affect people( when they get used to it) could start to ignore everyone who is carrying openly and this may let crazies get the surprise drop on people who would normally be the first to go and call the Cops if they see someone walking along with a weapon in their hands.

    I think too, with Cops being jumpy because of terrorism, I for one would not open carry ever. This may result in Cops shooting a lot of innocent people too.

    On the plus side, if I was a criminal bent on knocking off a bank or a grocery store I would think twice if everyone in the store had a gun on their hips. I think rapists too would not try to attack a lot of women who open carry unless they were very careful to get the jump on them before they realized they were being attacked.

    I for one would not choose to carry openly, these days the political climate over guns in relation to a panicked public and a panicked Police makes open carry a foolish thing.

    • I speak for only myself. For me, open carry means a full size pistol in a holster outside the waistband covered with a long shirttail draped over without much risk of losing 2A rights due to brandishing as defined by a cop’s personal opinion on the matter.
      If somebody carries a six gun on each hip, more power to them. I got no problem with it. I’m in no more danger than them hiding it in their pants because its their intentions and not their method of carry that matters.

    • “I think too, with Cops being jumpy because of terrorism, I for one would not open carry ever. This may result in Cops shooting a lot of innocent people too.”

      Histrionic nonsense.

      Where does this kind of crap come from?

      Cops are not going to go all “Shoot the Terrorist” on everyday Open Carriers walking around with HOLSTERED FIREARMS while going about their day.

      This is just more anti-OC screed that is not rationally based.

      OC is just NOT that big of a deal. Get over it and all the fantasies you have about how it will get OC-ers killed.

      • Nonsense baloney. On to-nights news they just refused to indict two Cleveland Cops that shot a 12 year old boy with a concealed toy gun. They rushed in with their cruiser stopped almost on top of the kid rather than stop a discreet distance away and yell for him to put his hands up. Rather they jumped out of their cruiser knowing he may have had a gun and opened fire without any command whatsoever. It happened in just 2 seconds. If you substitute a concealed gun for an unconcealed gun then you can see why I posted what I did. It came from real life. So that is where I got my info, real life, a real situation. And panicked unprofessional untrained cops willing to shoot first and then examine the dead body to see if the person really was a threat. That is exactly why I would never carry unconcealed. All it takes is one panicked phone call to the police about a guy carrying a gun and you are an instant terrorist or criminal who will be gunned down on sight if you make any move that will panic the cops and that includes simply having a ball point pen in your hand as was the case in another cop killing.

        And how about the black man that was shopping with his girlfriend. He had a concealed carry permit but unfortunately a female clerk saw him bend over exposing his gun. She called the cops and as the man exited the store the cops were waiting for him and shot him down instantly. Again another real life example of panicked untrained cops shooting first and then examining the dead mans concealed carry permit and saying whoops, we screwed up. So what, we made a mistake.

        Carry unconcealed and you are at risk. Carry concealed and it had better not imprint or be exposed when you bend over, this is from real life and its tragic consequences.

        • “Nonsense baloney. On to-nights news they just refused to indict two Cleveland Cops that shot a 12 year old boy with a concealed toy gun.

          What the hell does that have to do with Open Carry?

          “Rather they jumped out of their cruiser knowing he may have had a gun and opened fire without any command whatsoever.”


          There’s more to this story than you are telling.

          Link please?

          “That is exactly why I would never carry unconcealed. “

          But…but…but…from your story, it was a CONCEALED gun. So, you going to stop carrying concealed now, too?

          I mean, if this story is your basis for fearing execution by the cops, then your decision should at least fit the circumstances of the case that’s giving you the vapors.

          No CC for you, man…it’s just too dangerous!

          “All it takes is one panicked phone call to the police about a guy carrying a gun”

          And what are cops and dispatchers all over the country already telling people that do that? What does the video linked in this post’s article say about that?

          They are telling people to STFU and get a grip unless the OC-er is actually doing something that merits a threat.

          and you are an instant terrorist or criminal


          It’s just not happening. Anywhere.

          Cops investigate such man-with-a-gun calls, sure. But we see here in the real world that those investigations go without them gunnin down the poor OC-er in cold blood.

          Shoot, man, there’s even youtube videos of these encounters! Even from folks trying to PROVOKE the cops, generally they only get into a bit of verbal jiu jitsu. Sometimes arrested.

          Name one case where someone panicked on an everyday OC-er, called the cops and the cops responded by opening fire without any investigation. Just one.

          It would be ALL OVER THE NEWS if it happened, and in fact, the cops themselves are telling people not to do this.

          “And how about the black man that was shopping with his girlfriend. He had a concealed carry permit but unfortunately a female clerk saw him bend over exposing his gun. She called the cops and as the man exited the store the cops were waiting for him and shot him down instantly. “

          Seriously? This happened as you described it? The gun was concealed and holstered when he exited the store?

          Citation Needed.

          How come this is not trotted out in EVERY OC discussion?

          Oh wait. This is NOT an OC story, anyway.

          Again, you better not CONCEALED CARRY…if you print and someone calls the cops YOU TOO COULD BE GUNNED DOWN IN COLD BLOOD!!!1111!!!

          I’m guessing there’s more to it, if it happened at all anywhere but your fevered imagination.

          “Carry unconcealed and you are at risk. Carry concealed and it had better not imprint or be exposed when you bend over, this is from real life and its tragic consequences.

          I’m seriously doubting the veracity of your claims…that the exposure of the firearm alone got anybody killed by cops…no gun in hand, no threats being made, etc.

          Show me the cases, not just your anecdotal referral to them. Please.

        • Get serious, you are asking me for documentation on the Cleveland Shooting, its only been in the international news as well as U.S. news for a year now and it was all over the news tonight. Seriously don’t you have a TV set?

          And the other story was plastered all over the gun rags about the black man being slaughtered as he walked out of a store by the police who gunned him down without even bothering to try and disarm him or ask him politely if he had a CCW permit.

          Lets face facts when you carry open or concealed you have to be aware of jumpy panicky cops. I have a very close friend who was involved in an incident and he knew the cops were on the way. Before they got there he took his gun and put it in inside his car and then had both hands showing with his ccw card and drivers license in his hand and he stood away from his car on purpose. He immediately notified the cop of his ccw and the cop seemed to panic on the spot and my friend reassured him he was not armed and the gun was in the car. I mention this incident to drive home the point that cops regard anyone who is armed as dangerous and their immediate enemy and anything can happen if a cop panics. If you are not aware of this you can make a fatal mistake when carrying.

          We had an incident in the nearby town of Canton, Ohio where a cop was actually threatening to shoot people for burned out license plate bulbs. He stopped the wrong guy one night and everything was recorded and it went viral on You Tube. The cop arrested the guy because he had a concealed permit and It took a year to get rid of and fire the cop nut case. Again if this cop had been left unexposed he most assuredly would have eventually shot and killed someone that is why he lost his job. When you mix in the CCW permit this loose cannon only went more berserk when he found out the man he stopped for the burnt out license plate bulb had a gun on him.

          And you ask what does this have to do with open carry? If you do not know then it would be pointless for me to try and draw you a picture.

        • “On to-nights news they just refused to indict two Cleveland Cops that shot a 12 year old boy with a concealed toy gun. “

          Good grief…are you talking about Tamir Rice?

          He had the GUN IN HIS HAND

          Good shoot, bad shoot and the issue of medical care are a separate discussions, but the cops did most assuredly NOT just roll up and open fire someone they “suspected” had a concealed firearm.


          A recent FBI video analysis, the prosecutor said, showed Tamir “was drawing his gun from his waist as the police slid toward him and Officer Loehmann exited the car.” After the shooting, officers discovered it was a toy gun.

          {my emphasis}

          Doesn’t fit your description of the facts of the case at all.

          Your whole thesis is busted if this is what you are basing “the cops will gun you down as a terrorist if you Open Carry” idiocy on.

          I’m guessing your other “referenced” case is an equally large non sequitur.

          Give the histrionic bleating a rest.

        • Your taking the prosecutors view point. The other viewpoint is that he was pulling up his pants not drawing his gun. If the cops had pulled up farther away and shouted a command neither of which they did he would not have been shot. Lets face facts pouncing on someone and then gunning him down in less than 2 seconds meant that he was not given a command or had time to respond to one either. The cops claim that he drew the gun because it was found on the ground but this could have happened after he was shot and hit the ground which could have easily caused the gun to fall out of his pants.

          Even if we take the cops at their word and he had a hand on his gun it is further claimed he may have been in the act of surrendering the gun to the cops. If the cops had yelled put up your hands, freeze etc etc. again he would not have been shot. Remember the gun was not drawn out and pointed at the police at all. There have been other incidents broadcast on TV which actually showed people pointing their guns at cops and the cops still yelled drop the weapon before they fired.

        • “Your taking the prosecutors view point. “

          Not really…more like I’m saying this case is nothing like how you represented it, and as “evidence” that cops are going to start gunning down Open Carriers is not only fantasy, but rather moronic as well.

          There is a possibility the prosecutor’s viewpoint is correct. Or, maybe he was just pulling up his pants.

          Either way, the cops did not just roll up and open fire on someone that they thought MIGHT have a CONCEALED GUN…which still has f-all to do with Open Carry.

          When you get a clue, let me know. We might try having a rational conversation.

    • Jlp, northern Ohio, aka southern Canada, is sort of an anomaly. The rest of us in Ohio open carry just fine without any problems. It wouldn’t be that way for the free parts of Ohio if many of us hadn’t started open carrying when others were wringing their hands in the same manner that you are doing here. It seems to me that your solution is to go into the closet and stay there. The rest of us will stay outside of the closet and enjoy the exercise of our natural right to bear arms. I open carry every single day in Ohio. Sometimes I carry an AK type rifle. Many of us have done so in downtown Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus. It is just simply not the big problem you are making it out to be; at least in Ohio. The way to keep our nation paralyzed by such an irrational fear of individuals exercising their natural rights is by discouraging the exercise of those rights. Stay in the closet and you will continue to be treated like the fringe of society. Come out of the closet and live your life as a free individual.

  11. Dear God, how do you people actually believe what you post? Yes, law enforcement CAN ask for a CHL if we see you open carry. We can do it if your weapon is matting while concealed carrying. We can not do a warrant check or even a Terry Frisk, which the Supreme Court has upheld, just because we see you carrying. That being said, none of us in my department care if you open carry. We have better things to do than check licenses every time we see a gun. We do know who shouldn’t have one, by our experience dealing with them all the time, and will act accordingly.

    Law enforcement will not shoot people for open carrying. That would be murder. If it’s a bad shoot, we get indicted and go to prison.

    As far as us “being jumpy”, I’m jumpy on a traffic stop on the interstate at 2 in the morning, or when I find an open door on an alarm call. Never shot anybody over it. Neither has anybody I work with.

    Terrorism. Now, yes, most of the “mass shooters” you hear about are by white guys, but let’s face it. You’re more likely to be a victim of a violent burglary than be a victim of a mass shooting event. Doesn’t mean we’re not looking for warning signs. That being said, if we’re bringing race into it, whites didn’t commit 9/11 (Twin Towers or Bengahzi), Paris, or San Bernadino. Nor are whites even close to being responsible for the extreme violence in Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., or Los Angelas.

    The only thing that, as an LEO, has me worried, is when some of you who post on here attempt to use “common sense”. Judging by some of the posts, as well as the author of the artical, you should probably go back to civics class. Now, do I agree with having to obtain a license to defend yourself? Absolutely not. You think that having to obtain a license to practice a God given right is Constitutional? I don’t. So let’s complain about that one instead of whining because we can ask for your CHL, which, by the way, I can do already.

    • Oh for Gods sakes, climb down down off your soap box you self righteous, indignant twat.
      You certainly don’t disappoint do you?.. Just as there is, and will be a few gun owners who need some further education on Gun laws, you certainly stand out as one of the MANY in Uniform who still think the public buys your ” bad shoot”, indictment- go-to-prison, tripe.. You picked the wrong site to start shoveling your Bovine excrement in.

      Cops have NOTHING better to do then to try jamming up people who hold a license, no matter what form it comes in.. Do you really think the general public buys the ” we have better things to do” BS?… All creatures take the path of least resistance, and yes that includes you Brave ( cough-cough) men and women in polyester costume ..

      If checking licenses all day long will score a collar without having to hassle with running down leads, chasing down criminals, or putting yourselves out, you heros are all over it. The only reason why you assholes approach our vehicle instead of making us come to you, is because of policy… So why don’t you save yourself some embarrassment by not attempting to polish that turd.

      You want to talk about things that make people worry, Try Being a civilian, and just making your way in life while avoiding jackasses with puffed up egos in uniforms. You morons enjoy the immunity, and exceptionalism afforded all Jackasses in Uniform. (you and yours ARE diddling the right union rep… right?? ) while the rest of us are held to a much higher standard. If we had half the slack Government gives cops You would be showing the Gun owning Law abiding public a hell of a lot more respect than you do. The fear you felt would be hoping to god you had your turrets under control, so a citizen( equally protected under the law ) wouldnt have to fear for their life and mag-dump you center of mass…

      • Well said.

        Disclaimers: Former LEO, would like to see more LEO accountability (ie, get rid of ‘qualified immunity’), oppose no-knock, no announce warrant service and don’t like jumping on any anti-cop bandwagon…

        With that disclaimer out of the way…again…well said. That post hits the key points of the issue(s).

    • Now, do I agree with having to obtain a license to defend yourself? Absolutely not. You think that having to obtain a license to practice a God given right is Constitutional? I don’t.

      Thank you for that. Now, please consider not enforcing those unconstitutional laws. You could start by no longer asking people if they have a CHL and not arresting them when they don’t. 😉

    • Texas leo, while many, including myself, don’t buy the “bad shoot=indictment” comment, I want to say thank you for your attitude regarding the rights of citizens, as well as the acknowledgement that you have better things to do than harass people.
      I hope that your rational and helpful attitude spreads. Thanks again.

  12. Right around that 12 minute mark is just gold, funny, funny stuff…just how did those poor little kids learn to be scared I wonder?

  13. Jan 1. Can’t come fast enough. I will be glad to be the first to welcome my fellow 2a bro & sis. Exercising the extra little right we had to pay for ($140). It may be silly, but I was born and raised in Texas and will enjoy the day going to from my daily business. I may even break out the cowboy hat. Sorry , born in the 60’s.

    I’ll be in the Norteast Tarrant co. area.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here