To open carry or concealed carry. That is the question.

[Alaska444]

Open carry is not allowed in CA any longer thanks to a recent bill. On the other hand, I prefer the idea of a concealed weapon so that becomes an element of tactical surprise. Open carry has less tactical surprise in an encounter. I don't believe open carry makes you less of a target, in fact, if they are looking for a gun to steal, it makes you more of a target and a good chance you will be dead by your own gun. CC is the best for those reasons.

[zincwarrior]

Open carry is not allowed in CA any longer thanks to a recent bill.

This. This is why many gun owners, especially CCLs, have real problems with the OC crowd outside of rural settings. It freaks people out, and then we lose further freedoms.

[Tom Servo]

I used to warn people that open carry would result in bans. They denied the possibility, then California happened.

I used to warn people that they were at risk for a gun grab, and they denied the possibility. Then a man in Richmond was disarmed and shot.

[CajunBass]

I used to warn people that open carry would result in bans. They denied the possibility, then California happened.

And just what did they lose? If they had the "right" to open carry, but were afraid to, because they were afraid they might get the right taken away, they might just as well not have the right.

Wars are not won or lost in a single battle, unless one chooses to give up.

[jimbob86]

If they had the "right" to open carry, but were afraid to, because they were afraid they might get the right taken away, they might just as well not have the right.

+1

At least now the State can not say "California is an Open Carry State!"

Reminds me of some lyrics by The Clash .....

"You have the Right ...... to Free Speech ....... so long as you are not dumb enough to actually try it!"

You can say California is a part of a Free Country, but it is just not in the Free part. I'd just as soon it were not any part. Call a spade a spade.

[twobit]

Something not mentioned as a plus for open carry, it allows you to carry full size guns more easily vs. limiting yourself to compact guns that more readily lend themselves to concealment. It is easier to accurately shoot a full size handgun than it is a compact model so there is a valid issue with carrying a full size handgun.

I live in a rural setting in hot SW Texas. I am law enforcement (at the administration level). My work clothing is sometimes a uniform and sometimes civilian clothes. When I am working in civilian clothes I seldom wear a coat. I open carry, but also have on my belt the following items which help identify me as a LEO; handcuffs, radio, badge/ ID card. Since these things are spread out in different locations on my belt, one or more of these items are visible to someone from any angle. Very few people even notice that there is a Beretta 92FS in my holster in plain view. Most of the admin. level officers of all the various local agencies open carry in plain clothes with their ID displayed. The local citizens are used to seeing open carry by law enforcement. Most locals recognize us on site anyway.

Texas is not an open carry state for civilians. If it were, it probably would not cause alarm in the rural areas. I stay out of the big cities when possible. When I have to go there, I do wear a coat, unless I am in a marked police car. Oh, for the record; I have been in law enforcement for 25 years. Law abiding citizens legally carrying firearms on their persons does not bother me. We need all the help we can get from the good folks. As for the bad guys, well I've got strong opinions about that

I predict open carry will come to more and more states. Once it becomes the "norm" it will be a non issue. We no longer gawk at people with cell phone earpieces in their ear talking into thin air. We used to have to lock people up that went down the sidewalk alone having loud conversations with people who were not there.

Concealed carry has many pluses also. I think it might be nice if "concealed" was an individual choice instead of a legal mandate. I think open carry in Texas would be acceptable to all the rural Texans. Some (not all) of our big city people would throw a fit; well they need to be living in another state anyway. They just don't fit here.

[TexasJustice7]

JiminTexas: The standing rules that are/were observed by all were very much like concealed carry rules here in Texas. You don't take your gun into a bank, a bar, a church, a public or govenment building or a hospital. If there is a sign on the door that says don't bring it in you either don't go in or you surrender it to the owner/manager/person in charge when you go in. I chose to open carry.

The rules in Texas do allow carry in hospitals unless posted with a 30.06 sign. Government buildings too some of them, but not court houses. I heard about one bank in Texas that allows concealed carry. Some churches too. I don't think I would be in favor of open carry, and if passed in Texas I don't think I would open carry myself. Except federal property, any medical building or hospital which posts a 30.06 sign I will not go in. I do not believe that Open Carry will pass in Texas because there is too much profit in the permits for over 400,000 permit holders too. That is a lot of revenue.

[Walklightly]

To open carry or concealed carry. That is the question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a disclaimer, let me say that I have nothing against open carry, and I think it should be legal in all 50 states.

This is an open question to all those who open carry. Why do you do it? I've heard a thousand gun owners on why CCW is the best thing to be invented since the firearm itself, but I want to hear your side of the story. What are the advantages to carrying openly rather than concealed?

Hope I didn't waste my time by answering this.

Why you ask, and what does it matter?

[twobit]

If Texas ever allows open carry I seriously doubt they would drop the permit/license requirement. All current license requirements would remain in effect except it would no longer be required to be concealed.

[chris in va]

I've open carried a few times in VA and KY.

If people would stop making behind-the-back comments and giving me undue attention, whether it's positive or negative, I'd open carry every day. It's just more comfortable.

[chris in va]

I used to warn people that they were at risk for a gun grab, and they denied the possibility. Then a man in Richmond was disarmed and shot.

One instance. One. Unless you can come up with another instance involving a citizen (not LEO).

It's like saying, "I just knew someone would get killed in these cars they're building. See? It happened."

So let's ban open carry! Yay!

[Sparks1957]

I will support open-carry to my dying day. Will I open-carry myself, just because I can and the law allows it? No, I will not.

I do think open-carry outside of rural areas tends to freak gun opponents out, and increases the chances of legislation against it.

Concealed carry gives a distinct tactical advantage, and avoids some of the inherent problems. It is also not that uncomfortable if one has the right rig for your build and clothing.

[Tom Servo]

One instance. One. Unless you can come up with another instance involving a citizen (not LEO).

It doesn't get much press, but it happens. I know of one case in my area this year, and one other in a neighboring town. The second case involved the gun falling out of the victim's holster while standing on line at a supermarket. The guy behind him grabbed it and took off. Neither made the internet, but most stuff like this doesn't.

Since you want two documented cases, here's an oldie but goody.

So let's ban open carry! Yay!

Please point out here or anywhere else where I have pushed for banning open carry. Otherwise it's just more of the personal attacks I get when I voice skepticism of the utility of it. Frankly, I've never known it to change things for the better, while I've known it to change things for the worse.

There are risks. It can cause problems. Those are the things I want people to understand so they don't go out and make things worse for all of us.

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I think OC and CC are both good options. If I'm in a bad part of town and I want to protect myself CC is best IMO, but if I'm doing work around the yard or riding my motorcycle I tend to OC.

The constutition protects both. To keep (CC) and bear (OC) arms. It's quite clear.

[FairWarning]

I'm not in favor of open carry.

1) Potential for someone else to grab it
2) Disturbing segments of the public for no reason
3) Possibly promoting an unwise macho attitude in the carrier

These are the 3 big negatives for me. Sure, most who would OC are level headed, but what have we learned from watching humans over thousands or years? Get enough of them to do something, and some are going to do it STUPIDLY. CCW addresses personal defense without much concern for #1 and #2 at least, although #3 can still be a problem for some.

If widely accepted, people of all types would want to OC. Not just respectable, hard working, law abiding Americans. There would also be hoodrats and other seedy types who might qualify if they had not yet been caught doing something illegal and therefore banned from OC. How would you like to see hoodrat thugs with .45s in plain view walking around your local grocery store? I wouldn't like that at all.

[chris in va]

Since you want two documented cases, here's an oldie but goody.

Ok, first of all this was in Wisconsin, and at the time they didn't have concealed carry at all and OC was his only option. The article states he had been robbed at knifepoint before and felt OC would be a viable deterrent.

The article didn't say if his gun was taken or not, just said "robbed".

I personally know of an individual that (may) have defeated a bank robbery due to OC. Older gentleman in Richmond VA, passing some time with a couple tellers at the local branch. Nice warm, spring day in the 60's, a guy walks in with a balaclava over his face. He looked around wringing his hands, sees the gentleman in the corner and promptly walks out.

If widely accepted, people of all types would want to OC. Not just respectable, hard working, law abiding Americans. There would also be hoodrats and other seedy types who might qualify if they had not yet been caught doing something illegal and therefore banned from OC. How would you like to see hoodrat thugs with .45s in plain view walking around your local grocery store? I wouldn't like that at all.

Understandable, but ask someone in Arizona, Kentucky, Alaska or Virginia if that's the situation. Doubt it. Making statements like that without actual experience is rather dangerous.

[arch308]

I'm still debating with myself whether to get a CCW liscence or not. As far as I'm concerned, I don't feel I should have to per the U.S. Constitution. The legal mumbo jumbo is another thing. Here in Texas it is perfectly legal to have a handgun in your auto per the "Castle Doctrine" but to CC you must get (i.e. purchase) a liscence. I don't like being on Govt. lists or giving them more of my hard earned money. But then, I won't wear a seat belt either.

[orionengnr]

don't know about CT, but in TX if you are printing at all, you are under arrest and you can kiss your CCW permit goodbye! Police officers here are pretty much "educated persons" in that regard. Good luck.

Really?

You don't know much about TX, either.

Do you actually have a TX CHL? If you did, and your instuctor understood anything at all, you would not be posting this BS.

[MLeake]

Tom Servo, while I generally agree with you on the impracticality of open carry in most settings, I have to disagree with you as far as the California ban goes. Frankly, I think the new ban is a very good thing... because it undermines the rationale various California and 9th Circuit courts have used in allowing "May Issue" to be as gnarly as it is in California. IE, the courts said counties that didn't (normally) issue concealed permits were ok, because open carry was allowed.

The new ban just opened a wave of lawsuits; I think California's legislature just shot themselves in the foot - either that, or its pro-gun members got sneaky.

[JohnKSa]

One instance. One. Unless you can come up with another instance involving a citizen (not LEO).

No, that's just plain silly. For years I've been pointing out that it COULD happen based on simple logic and folks have been replying that it won't happen because it hasn't happened.

Now we have a documented instance of it happening and so the song has changed from "It won't happen because it hasn't happened" to "It won't happen because it's only happened once." The fact is that CAN happen. It HAS happened and it's going to happen again sooner or later.

Because civilian OC is actually very rare, ANY type of incident involving civilian OC is similarly very rare. The fact that incidents (of ANY type) involving civilian OC don't happen often is evidence that civilian OC doesn't happen often, and not evidence of much else at all.

It's like trying to claim that flying cars are very safe because no one can come up with a documented fatality involving a flying car. The fact is that flying cars are very rare so as a consequence anything involving flying cars is also very rare. The fact that there are very few (perhaps no) fatal accidents involving flying cars doesn't prove they're safe, it just proves that flying cars are very rare.

It's like saying, "I just knew someone would get killed in these cars they're building. See? It happened."

It IS just like that. Logic said it could happen, now we have proof that logic actually makes sense. What's the point?

So let's ban open carry! Yay!

That doesn't follow. The fact that a thing has the potential to result in a negative outcome doesn't automatically mean that it should be banned, nor does the fact that someone points out that a thing can result in a negative outcome mean that they're advocating a ban of it.

I realize that automobile accidents do happen and that some accidents are fatal, but the fact that I realize that, or the fact that I point that out doesn't mean automobiles should be banned or that I think they should be banned. It just points out that I realize that there is inherent risk in riding in automobiles that should be addressed in a constructive manner.

In this particular case, I would say that a civilian carrying openly should address the inherent risk of a gun grab with a retention holster, just as LEOs who open carry do.

Ok, first of all this was in Wisconsin, and at the time they didn't have concealed carry at all and OC was his only option.

Irrelevant. The fact that he had no other option doesn't mean that what happened didn't happen nor does it imply that OC doesn't come with some level of risk. It did happen and there is obviously some risk associated with OC as the incident shows. The fact that he had no other option for legal carry is beside the point.

Saying otherwise is like saying because a person can't legally ride in an automobile or truck, a motorcycle is perfectly safe because the person has no other option. The fact that a person can't ride in a car or truck doesn't make a motorcycle any safer, it just makes it the only reasonable option for personal motorized transportation.

Does OC act as a deterrent? No doubt it does to some. But not to all as the incidents cited on this thread show. Therefore it makes sense to consider that FACT when deciding to OC and how to OC.

If widely accepted, people of all types would want to OC. Not just respectable, hard working, law abiding Americans. There would also be hoodrats and other seedy types who might qualify if they had not yet been caught doing something illegal and therefore banned from OC. How would you like to see hoodrat thugs with .45s in plain view walking around your local grocery store? I wouldn't like that at all.

I wouldn't like that any more than I like the idea of them carrying concealed. But that doesn't make it a good reason to ban or restrict OC. Restricting the rights of EVERYONE because some criminals might abuse those rights is a terrible idea. Criminals can likely find ways to abuse virtually any right you care to name. If we take away any right that a criminal might be able to abuse we'll have no rights at all in very short order.

[MLeake]

JohnKSA, I seem to recall reading that the guy who developed the flying AMC Javelin for The Man with the Golden Gun ended up killing himself shortly after finishing the shoot; wing spar broke off in flight at 400 ft, IIRC.

So there seems to have been at least one flying car fatality, too...

[JohnKSa]

One instance. One. Unless you can come up with another instance...

[shortwave]

I'm not against OC if that's what a person chooses to do.

Buuut...to argue that OC does not present more of a chance of the OC'd weapon to be taken, IMO, is very naive at best.

If everyone agrees that many criminals engage mostly in crimes of opportunity then it would only stand to reason if we OC we present more of an opportunity to have our weapon taken simply cause we're displaying/advertising our weapon than someone CC'ing where the bad guy doesn't know we have a gun in the first place.
Common sense tells me...If you advertise something that someone wants, you stand a better chance of having that 'something' taken.
Too, there have been cases where BG's guys have taken an LEO's weapon, would it not stand to reason that these same BG's would take a non- LEO civilians weapon also?

I'll take the cc or 'outta sight- outta mind' approach, but again, I can see a place for OC in certain arena's.

[bumnote]

I live in VA outside Washington DC and between the at least 2-5 local LE agencies areas I pass through just getting to work, the state LEO's, and all the Federal agencies...FBI, Secret Service, Park Police, Pentagon PD, etc. open carrying around here is a PITA. I like the police a lot, but don't enjoy attracting undue attention and conversations with 'em. Next throw in a population that's 50/50 on firearms that will go from being extremely nice to you to cautious and nervous around you at best, add in a large criminal element here that's not about to be detered by it and the advantage is???
If I'm going to have to use it to defend my life, I'm at a far better advantage CCW. Any fight I'm forced into where my opponent knows what and how my method of defense is going to be only puts me at a huge disadvantage, surprise is as important in that scenario as competency with my firearm is.
That said I support OC but as far as SD goes, I see absolutely no advantage.

[Tom Servo]

The new ban just opened a wave of lawsuits; I think California's legislature just shot themselves in the foot - either that, or its pro-gun members got sneaky.

That's not really the case. The folks who actually get stuff done in California repeatedly asked the UOC folks to keep it down. The UOC folks responded with "nuts to you, it's mah right! You're a buncha sellouts!"

Of course, that didn't stop the UOC folks from asking for legal assistance from the "sellouts" when they got in trouble with the law for carrying in the wrong place.

Anyhow, the folks who got stuff done were busy pursing a strategy that was working, and now the ban on UOC has forced them to switch gears. The problem with the UOC "movement" was that it placed a lot of hunters and folks in rural areas in the crosshairs of a battle they never wanted, and a ban on the practice affects everyone, not just a few suburban attention grabbers.

Thing is, this is California. 2A lawsuits take more time, money, planning, and effort than they do in many other states. It's a lot harder to win. The UOC crowd seems to think that the math is:

Ban=Lawsuit=Repeal=Yay! It's really not that easy, and this situation could persist in California for years to come.