Here's my 2 cents..... I have a CCW and have no plans of open carrying. To me advertising that you have a weapon will get you killed first you're caught in a robbery. If I'm caught in a situation like that I don't want the bad guys knowing I have a weapon. If you want to walk around like Marshal Dillon or Quick Draw McGraw that's up to you but personally I think open carry is a bad thing waiting to happen.

+1 You've given up the element of surprise.

Here's my 2 cents..... I have a CCW and have no plans of open carrying. To me advertising that you have a weapon will get you killed first you're caught in a robbery. If I'm caught in a situation like that I don't want the bad guys knowing I have a weapon. If you want to walk around like Marshal Dillon or Quick Draw McGraw that's up to you but personally I think open carry is a bad thing waiting to happen.

This has never happened in the other 42 states that have open carry, why do you think it will magically happen here?

+1 You've given up the element of surprise.

But I have used a deterrent and therefore have no need for the element of surprise.

I don't really have a dog in this fight--gave up all my handguns decades ago--but it seems to me that there is a thin line between "deterrent" and "dare" in this context.

If I were a criminal (and I used to be acquainted with a few, back in the day) bent on achieving one twisted goal or another, I would shoot the "threats" that I knew were carrying guns first.

"If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don' talk."
--Eli "Tuco" Wallach, The Good The Bad and The Ugly

I don't really have a dog in this fight--gave up all my handguns decades ago--but it seems to me that there is a thin line between "deterrent" and "dare" in this context.

If I were a criminal (and I used to be acquainted with a few, back in the day) bent on achieving one twisted goal or another, I would shoot the "threats" that I knew were carrying guns first.

"If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don' talk."
--Eli "Tuco" Wallach, The Good The Bad and The Ugly

Depends on how bad they want to commit the crime. Most criminals are looking for an easy target. They also don't really want to go to jail for murder or get themselves shot for a few bucks. Typically criminals are not the sharpest knife in the drawer and aren't going to be looking for anyone with a firearm. Keep in mind, I did say most, not all. But I still go back to the fact that his has not happened in other states. Some of those states don't have a permitting process and some have had open carry since statehood.

Now nothing would stop a criminal with a well thought out plan and enough people to help.

And I will be sticking close by the guy carrying the firearm as that will make me feel safer.

I can't wait to see "Yosemite Sam" at Wal Mart!

That is just fine. But when a robber walks in who only wanted to steal $150 from the register and you suddenly find yourself in the middle of a gun fight, come back here and tell me how it was. I have been in combat. I know what bullets flying feels like. It isn't "safer". When I am walking my 3 kids, the fewer guns in my AO, the better. Sorry, I lived in Oklahoma far too long. I know too many people who are so proud of their gun -- it scares me. To me, they are worse than some of the criminals on the street because they are just itching to get to use it in a "dangerous" situation. Again, I know these people. These are not stereotypes I have seen on TV. No amount of "statistics" will convince me that me and my family is safer in a restaurant with a person openly carrying a firearm. I will walk out.

To be clear, just because this law passes, I don't think that suddenly we will start to see guns everywhere. Too many people that carry for self-defense know the silliness of brandishing a weapon before a threat is exposed. This law isn't likely to mean a spike in gun related injuries or a decrease either. All it will really do is make a statement. A statement that our legislature is dying to make. One that is only masked in the argument of the 2nd Amendment.

In summary, you should always be able to defend yourself. Unfortunately, if in the act of defending yourself you want to choose a method that puts others at risk in public, then you must be restrained. In certain contexts ( I say in public), the measure of force may become excessive. You could make the argument if you were in the desert that using a bazooka isn't excessive. The odds of injuring an innocent person is virtually non-existent. However, a small handgun can easily kill an innocent bystander in a normal setting like a restaurant. In your house, you are not likely to be able to injure someone else if you need to defend yourself with a gun. I say let 'em have it.

If someone on the road started to threaten you and you started to fight back with your car and caused another accident where someone was injured, would you use the 2nd Amendment to defend your action? The obvious answer is no. Because the act of bearing arms isn't merely for the purpose of self-defense. Our founders were quite aware of the threat of an army being brought up against them was very real. They wanted no chances that the population wouldn't be armed and ready to defend. The idea that the 2nd Amendment has been reinterpreted to mean that people should be able to carry and brandish guns in public in the name of self-defense is a stretch and quite frankly a little insulting to me. Early American history isn't a hard thing to learn and this "debate" is to me, a clear example of how poorly we teach it.

...to keep (to own) and bear (to carry) arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty clear to me that the framers wanted us to have the ability to own and carry firearms as we saw fit.

Without all the OC vs CC tactical mumbo jumbo, it seems that even carrying concealed one still puts others in public at risk. Are you saying that all CCers need to be restrained as well? Maybe I am using the wrong definition of restrained. Do you mean restrained by use of force, or that each person carrying must show personal restraint and draw in a dire emergency?

Are you also saying that you are OK with people who CC because out of sight out of mind, but not OC because you can see it?

This has never happened in the other 42 states that have open carry, why do you think it will magically happen here?

1. I said this was just my opinion
2. Do you have something that shows it's 'never' happened?

And I will be sticking close by the guy carrying the firearm as that will make me feel safer.

Not sure how safe you'll be with the bad guy shooting at the one with the gun LOL

Well said Sid

Not sure how safe you'll be with the bad guy shooting at the one with the gun LOL

Well hopefully the good guy would have taken out the badguy pretty quickly.

1. I said this was just my opinion
2. Do you have something that shows it's 'never' happened?

1. I understand it is your opinion, I'm just trying to figure out how you came to that assumption. An informed opinion generally means some thought has gone into the process. If no thought has gone into the process, the response is purely emotional.

2. How about the lack of evidence supporting this statement. Maybe 'never' is to strong of a word, how about 'virtually never'. If this kind of thing happened as often as it was lead to believe, someone would be keeping track of it to get the states to prohibit people from openly carrying firearms. Since this is not the case, this must happen close enough to the value of never, we may as well call it never. I read a national open carry forum, and if something like this happened somewhere, believe me, there would be posts upon posts about it. That's about the best I can do, the only way I know of to prove something 'never' happened is to point to the lack of that that it actually did. I mean, there is no evidence that 85,000,000 gun owners did not kill anyone yesterday either.

Not sure how safe you'll be with the bad guy shooting at the one with the gun LOL

You assume that the good guy would initially put himself in the confrontation. Sorry...not me. Carrying open or concealed does not mean I'm anyone's personal hero and my first goal is to save my own skin. At that point I *may* intervene from behind if appropriate, but in no way am I going to get in the face of the bad guy and try and play cops and robbers.

you assume that the good guy would initially put himself in the confrontation. Sorry...not me. Carrying open or concealed does not mean i'm anyone's personal hero and my first goal is to save my own skin. At that point i *may* intervene from behind if appropriate, but in no way am i going to get in the face of the bad guy and try and play cops and robbers.

xxxxxx

so you'll just shoot him in the back?

I never said I'd shoot them to begin with. I said I *may* intervene. The level of that intervention will be dependent upon the situation. Even if I were to choose the option you mention, it would still be legal.

Physical or deadly force against intruder
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Nm

Why didn't you quote the beginning part of the Amendment? <snip>
I didn't quote the beginning of it because the Supreme Court has ruled it to be an individual right. So using that basis, generally the argument turns to the second part of what keep and bear means. I appreciate the history posted behind the 2nd, with the semicolons in place, I do not agree with the interpretation of it, but that's for a different discussion.


By restrained I mean legally. In other words, carrying a weapon around (like a soldier) in public would be an exception to the legal norm and should require permitting or licencing. Military reenactors is a good example.
While I don't agree with permitting or licensing the right as interpreted, the bill that is pending in our legislature would do just that. One must have a concealed weapons license in order to openly carry a firearm.


Nope, I am saying that the act of carrying OC or using it isn't threatening the rights of others (life, liberty, etc). Shooting a weapon in public, is to me, an act of violence and aggression -- regardless of one's well intentions.Just today we had an officer involved shooting in Edmond. The officer shot an armed individual who would not put down his firearm after instructed to do so by officers. Do you see this as an act of violence and aggression as well? An officer of the law ending a potentially dangerous situation.

I would be hard pressed to say shooting someone is not an act of aggression or violence, even if the police did it.

When I get confused is when conceal and carry advocates are openly against open carry. It seems every worst case scenario they propose would apply regardless if the weapon was concealed or open. Either way, the person has a gun on them. I don't see how 1/16" piece of cloth covering a firearm makes a case either way.

When I get confused is when conceal and carry advocates are openly against open carry. It seems every worst case scenario they propose would apply regardless if the weapon was concealed or open. Either way, the person has a gun on them. I don't see how 1/16" piece of cloth covering a firearm makes a case either way.

I'm not against open carry, although I can see where it might be more dangerous for the person. I just said for myself that I prefer others didn't know if I was carrying or not.

I'm not against open carry, although I can see where it might be more dangerous for the person. I just said for myself that I prefer others didn't know if I was carrying or not.

I can't figure out which side of the fence I fall. Does open carry give up my element of surprise or does openly carrying a gun mean most opportunistic criminals will leave me alone for easier prey?

I do however think anyone with a CLEET armed card should be able to openly carry - which apply mostly to security guards, private investigators and bounty hunters.

I can't figure out which side of the fence I fall. Does open carry give up my element of surprise or does openly carrying a gun mean most opportunistic criminals will leave me alone for easier prey?

I do however think anyone with a CLEET armed card should be able to openly carry - which apply mostly to security guards, private investigators and bounty hunters.

I think open carrying would be like a spotlight on you and people would do a lot of staring. I don't really want to draw that much attention to myself plus if things go down I don't want to be the first one taken out. As always jmho

let me add if I was going hunting or camping I would probably open carry but not out to eat or to the grocery store.

What would you think if you went into say an eating establishment and the person waiting on you was openly carrying a gun?

I would think I better leave a damn good tip

I can't figure out which side of the fence I fall. Does open carry give up my element of surprise or does openly carrying a gun mean most opportunistic criminals will leave me alone for easier prey?

I think that each person must decide how to carry for any situation. Some will feel the need to CC always and others OC always. Some will find a balance. I believe that each person should be able to have the choice of how they want to carry and protect themselves.

I think that each person must decide how to carry for any situation. Some will feel the need to CC always and others OC always. Some will find a balance. I believe that each person should be able to have the choice of how they want to carry and protect themselves.

I agree with this, however, I think (as stated before), it should come with a requirement of better training (CLEET) and insurance requirements.

You have and use a gun in your home, that's your problem. You use a gun in public and it becomes everyone else's problem. I would rest more assured if i knew people who choose to carry a gun, did so with the benefit of real training (CLEET) and the financial responsibility of insurance.

I agree with this, however, I think (as stated before), it should come with a requirement of better training (CLEET) and insurance requirements.

You have and use a gun in your home, that's your problem. You use a gun in public and it becomes everyone else's problem. I would rest more assured if i knew people who choose to carry a gun, did so with the benefit of real training (CLEET) and the financial responsibility of insurance.

Unfortunately, IMO, this puts more burden on the law abiding citizen. Placing restrictions on rights amounts to a poll tax.

Unfortunately, IMO, this puts more burden on the law abiding citizen. Placing restrictions on rights amounts to a poll tax.

The only 'burden' here would be the burden of being a responsible gun owner.

Your rights end where mine begin.

Unfortunately, IMO, this puts more burden on the law abiding citizen. Placing restrictions on rights amounts to a poll tax.

Also depends on who is interpreting your 'rights.' Many would argue you have no right to bear arms in public - which is why you can't in some states.

I would think I better leave a damn good tip

Loved it!

I can't think of anything more provocative and stupid than allowing folks to openly carry guns.

I can't think of anything more provocative and stupid than allowing folks to openly carry guns.

sounds like proof you've never observed a legislative debate in recent years.

I can't think of anything more provocative and stupid than allowing folks to openly carry guns.

Which rings of hollow ignorance considering several states already allow it without any issues.

no BB, when I see anyone carry a gun I immediately feel threatened. even when I see LEOs carry. my guess you must feel the same way, since you want to carry one. you must feel threatened. why would you carry?

You won't be around me carrying a weapon.

no BB, when I see anyone carry a gun I immediately feel threatened. even when I see LEOs carry. my guess you must feel the same way, since you want to carry one. you must feel threatened. why would you carry?

You won't be around me carrying a weapon.

You probably have more to fear from someone with a concealed weapon than someone with a visible holster.

no BB, when I see anyone carry a gun I immediately feel threatened. even when I see LEOs carry. my guess you must feel the same way, since you want to carry one. you must feel threatened. why would you carry?

You won't be around me carrying a weapon.

Hmmmm, actually, I am and have been CLEET phase 4 certified for a few years now. Meaning, I can carry a gun virtually anywhere a police officer can. Its not a matter of me 'wanting to carry.' I actually don't own a gun. When I carry I borrow my wife's gun since she is CLEET certified also.

You feeling threatened by even the site of a cop with a gun reveals way more about you personally and not the general topic at hand.

Actually, you'd have no idea if I was around you with a weapon because when I carry you can't tell.

You feeling threatened by even the site of a cop with a gun reveals way more about you personally and not the general topic at hand.

While, I never get nervous when seeing a policeman carrying a gun, I can understand how some people might. Quite a few years ago I flew into Rome shortly after the Italian premier, Aldo Moro, had been murdered. There were military people all over the airport carrying rifles. They were doing their job but it gave me quite an unsettled feeling to see something like that unexpectedly.

You probably have more to fear from someone with a concealed weapon than someone with a visible holster.

concede that but it's not provocative and a visible threat to anyone else unarmed.

let me ask. If you are in public place with your children, say toddler age. You are unarmed and a young parent. How would you feel to see an armed man to enter your space? Now before you just blow that off, think about it. And if not you, the single mother you know, unarmed, and someone brings a huge weapon on their hip.

Perhaps you might ask your wife or mother how they might feel? Do you expect them to carry. I bet you do, you want them to conceal, because crazy Okies are carrying guns around!

and if you didn't feel threatened, why in the hell would you feel compelled to open carry in the first place?

Hmmmm, actually, I am and have been CLEET phase 4 certified for a few years now. Meaning, I can carry a gun virtually anywhere a police officer can. Its not a matter of me 'wanting to carry.' I actually don't own a gun. When I carry I borrow my wife's gun since she is CLEET certified also.

You feeling threatened by even the site of a cop with a gun reveals way more about you personally and not the general topic at hand.

Actually, you'd have no idea if I was around you with a weapon because when I carry you can't tell.

so you are scared to death all the time

While, I never get nervous when seeing a policeman carrying a gun, I can understand how some people might. Quite a few years ago I flew into Rome shortly after the Italian premier, Aldo Moro, had been murdered. There were military people all over the airport carrying rifles. They were doing their job but it gave me quite an unsettled feeling to see something like that unexpectedly.

well said, now how will you feel to see a lot of strange civilians, maybe even militia types open carry right in OKC? Walking up & down your neighborhood on the sidewalk while children play. You want young children to see all these guys carrying guns?

for some reason, I have suspicion about people with a need to open carry. Must be very fearful types.

well said, now how will you feel to see a lot of strange civilians, maybe even militia types open carry right in OKC? Walking up & down your neighborhood on the sidewalk while children play. You want young children to see all these guys carrying guns?

for some reason, I have suspicion about people with a need to open carry. Must be very fearful types.

You are so far out there its impossible to continue to take your seriously. There is ZERO evidence that we'd see 'a lot of strange civilians' carry openly even if the law is passed. It hasn't happened in other states so why would it happen here. Also, we have a large number of civilians that do have licenses to conceal and carry, yet when do we hear news stories of them randomly getting into fights and killing people?


so you are scared to death all the time

Where did that even come from? I guess you missed the part where I said I don't even own a gun.

I definately don't have a big issue with open carry but I can promise you you won't know that I have a gun on me unless I pull it out accordingly for self-defense.

sounds like proof you've never observed a legislative debate in recent years.

Open carry is a close second

The only 'burden' here would be the burden of being a responsible gun owner.

Your rights end where mine begin.

Now you're defining what a responsible person is, I don't buy it. You can be a responsible gun owner without doing all that other stuff. In 17 years of CC, we have not had a single bad shooting related to the SDA. Requiring extra training and extra insurance to exercise a right, creates a financial burden for anyone wishing to exercise that right.

I don't entirely buy the "Your rights end where mine begin" line. You have the right of free speech, I have the right to not listen. That doesn't mean you have to be silent though.

So zoning is a poll tax? The right to own property isn't debated. The right to own property in a way that subverts the rights of others is, and is regulated. Voting doesn't subvert the rights of others. It should never be taxed or regulated that way.

I missed the constitutional amendment that provides the right to property. I had to buy my property from someone selling it. If property is a right, then I got ripped off and I want my constitutional guaranteed property!!

Also depends on who is interpreting your 'rights.' Many would argue you have no right to bear arms in public - which is why you can't in some states.

There are currently 7 states that do not have any form of open carry, and many would argue it is the case simply because no one has taken them to court to get it overturned as unconstitutional. Federal court recently found Maryland's may issue permit system unconstitutional so why wouldn't an all out ban be unconstitutional as well?

no BB, when I see anyone carry a gun I immediately feel threatened. even when I see LEOs carry. my guess you must feel the same way, since you want to carry one. you must feel threatened. why would you carry?

You won't be around me carrying a weapon.

So because I don't like the color red, we should not allow people to wear red shirts because I feel uncomfortable around them? Same concept, a properly holstered firearm is no threat to anyone. There has never been a firearm leap from it's holster and go off on a rampage all by itself.

concede that but it's not provocative and a visible threat to anyone else unarmed.

let me ask. If you are in public place with your children, say toddler age. You are unarmed and a young parent. How would you feel to see an armed man to enter your space? Now before you just blow that off, think about it. And if not you, the single mother you know, unarmed, and someone brings a huge weapon on their hip.

Perhaps you might ask your wife or mother how they might feel? Do you expect them to carry. I bet you do, you want them to conceal, because crazy Okies are carrying guns around!

and if you didn't feel threatened, why in the hell would you feel compelled to open carry in the first place?

If the armed man is at the grocery store picking up some egg and cereal and a gallon of milk, I could care less.

Oh, and I do carry out of fear, fear for my family. I am afraid that someday, at the end of the day, they will be without a father and a husband. I carry so that I can provide myself the best opportunity to make it home to them at the end of the day.

Not using all the resources available to you is like trying to put your seat belt on right before you are involved in a car accident. Seat belts save lives....guns also save lives.

For anyone who has decided to carry a firearm, the choice of how to carry should be up to them.

Say what you will, but in my book, someone chooses to go about in public with a loaded weapon and feel you have no moral, ethical or legal burden to be properly trained and financially capable of paying for any loss of property or medical bills caused by your actions and you're a reckless fool. Reminds me of some of the ideas those sovereign citizen nut jobs talk about.

Say what you will, but in my book, someone chooses to go about in public with a loaded weapon and feel you have no moral, ethical or legal burden to be properly trained and financially capable of paying for any loss of property or medical bills caused by your actions and you're a reckless fool. Reminds me of some of the ideas those sovereign citizen nut jobs talk about.

I person who carries has the right to seek any additional training they want. But I don't think we should legislate what that extra training is. Many people who carry seek additional training. Maybe not from CLEET, but from the NRA or other training programs.

Following the same line of logic, we should legislate how much insurance people must have for vehicle insurance.

I person who carries has the right to seek any additional training they want. But I don't think we should legislate what that extra training is. Many people who carry seek additional training. Maybe not from CLEET, but from the NRA or other training programs.

Following the same line of logic, we should legislate how much insurance people must have for vehicle insurance.

I don't care where someone is trained, as long as the training provided is complete and approved. I'm a scuba diver and you must be certified to dive (I know its not a specific constitutional right), but I can be certified through more than one approved training provider - I chose PADI, my dive partner chose a different organization.

I definitely think minimum insurance requirements is a must on vehicles and should be on guns. I have a 2 million dollar policy specifically for me to carry a gun (even though I don't own one) and it only costs me about $100/yr.

I do carry out of fear, fear for my family. I am afraid that someday, at the end of the day, they will be without a father and a husband. I carry so that I can provide myself the best opportunity to make it home to them at the end of the day.

The huge majority of violent crime is not random -- it's between people that know each other.

If you mind your own business and treat people around you with respect, you are never going to have any problems. And this is coming from someone that has worked with gang members in what is generally considered the "worst" areas of Los Angeles.

The huge majority of violent crime is not random -- it's between people that know each other.

If you mind your own business and treat people around you with respect, you are never going to have any problems. And this is coming from someone that has worked with gang members in what is generally considered the "worst" areas of Los Angeles.

I think 'never' is a bit unrealistic. I'd guess most armed robbery victims didn't know their attacker and didn't provoke it. Same goes for many rape victims, etc.

I meant the statistical never rather than the literal one.

I meant the statistical never rather than the literal one. Ah, I do that.

Yes, based on population numbers, the odds of any one person needing a gun to fend off a violent criminal in public is pretty tiny. What I do is insanely dangerous and I've never felt the need to carry a gun. I do like them for home protection though. Lots of homes in our neighborhood get robbed by someone simply walking up and kicking in the back door. For that reason I keep a tactical shotgun (something I was certified in how to use) next to my desk in the living room and our bed.

... Same goes for many rape victims, etc.

Roughly 75 percent of all survivors know their assailants

Roughly 75 percent of all survivors know their assailants

And that stat lumps in date rape, etc. I'm talking about guy enters home in the middle of the night, etc. - makes the morning news. Notice I said 'many' and not all rapes in general. Even with lumping in date rapes, 25% is still a measurable amount.

I don't expect any more trouble from law-abiding citizens with this passing than what came from passing a concealed carry law (which amounts to none).

I support the open carry bill, mainly because of the protections it gives me when I CC. I don't carry all the time, but when I do, I'm paranoid that somehow I'll accidentally reveal and someone freaks out and tries to have me arrested.

I carry because I like being confident that I've done everything I can to make sure I can defend myself and my family in a bad situation. Will I openly carry if this passes? I have no to plans to. But at least I won't get arrested and lose my CC license if a random breeze blows my shirt open in front of someone like LowRyter.

+1