Dealing with the concealed carrier

Other than that the belt tip, which was a good one, this information was so basic and stereotyping, I.e. if someone is wearing cargo pants, a cap with the Colt logo on it, and a team Smith and Wesson shirt he may be armed. I almost found it insulating. Perhaps the reason for my feelings are, he did not describe my affinity group as possible armed citizens; the pudgy, 60 something male, wearing polo shirts, kaki Bermuda shorts, Top-Siders, and a pair of Ray Bans so dark you could safely use them to weld with.
 
Last edited:
Shhhhh!

Hey, Kathy - as one of that > 60 group, did I pass or stand out as Captain Commando of the Fog brigade?

I wonder if WA and I scared the breakfast crowd?
 
I rather enjoyed the article,but have to say i don't fall into most of the stereotypical dress as stated in the article.

But i am pleased to see information like this out there,and hopefully law enforcement will treat us concealed carriers with a little more respect
as we are not the typical run of the mill citizen....but more as individules
who take it upon our selves to be protected and not be victims.
 
If there is one part of the article I wish LEOs would read, remember, and take to heart, it would be this:

Law abiding citizens do not expect to be treated like a felon — nor should they be. They will be angry if you prone them out, spread eagle them against a wall, or take their firearm from them without just cause. Good point to remember: A little thought and common sense goes a long way here.
Click to expand...
Common sense is not part of the curriculum at the police academy in my state. They teach "command voice" instead -- if your inappropriate and confusing request/order does not result in immediate compliance, repeat said inappropriate and confusing request/order at increasing volume levels until the serf has been psychologically neutralized.
 
Wildalaska said:
I frequently Mexican carry. Handy for those stop and go car trips
Click to expand...

That's why I mostly have "clip"type IWB holsters. Especially since I switched jobs and can't carry at work, I just take off the whole holster and put it in the console. The only problem is so many clip holsters are junk
 
I wonder if WA and I scared the breakfast crowd?
Click to expand...
Wildalaska replies:
Would have if ya didnt make me go change out of my thong.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that, I am trying really hard to get the "out of my thong" thought out of my head! (And I wasn't even there!)

The article was very broad, read: many generalities, and could easily have been titled, "Intro to Spotting a Concealed Carry 101".

And the parting "shot":
WildtheseecampfitssonicelyAlaska TM ©2002-2010
Click to expand...

I may just have started fasting...
 
I thought it was a good article. And, I see nothing wrong with stereotyping - I find that most "stereotypes" have a large degree of accuracy - not 100%, but better than 60%.

Just one question: What is a "blade stance" - as mentioned in the article?
 
I do have concern about LEOs spotting me because they might be a nerd about it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I was rather offended by this article because there's no actual need for police to ever know that a legal CCW'er is carrying. There just isn't. It's none of their business, and them knowing the so-called 'warning signs' only makes it easier for them to harass more people. Yay.

I mean, look at the title of the article. "Dealing with citizens legally carrying a concealed weapon." Why do you need to deal with them? They're carrying legally.

Rrrgh.
 
Skans: What is a "blade stance"
Click to expand...

Were you being serious or facetious?

Might be a typo or regional difference; but assuming the former (serious question), a bladed stance is one that isn't square to the target, with weak side shoulder forward, firearm generally close to the body.

It has benefits and drawbacks depending on the scenerio and whether the shooter is wearing body armor.

Freak: "dealing"
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree. When reading the article, try to not add something from your own perspective that isn't there. This article was written for other officers, not legally carrying citizens, so remember the audience and interpret his tone/wording accordingly.

I don't believe the officer intended to imply that citizens who legally carry need to be "dealt" with. Perhaps it wasn't the best choice of words. Being somebody who is an avid supporter of carry laws, you may read it that way which puts a spin on his article, so just be careful there. For what it's worth, I read it that way the first time too, and then asked "is that what he really meant, or was it just how I read the word?" I think he simply meant how officers should deal with the reality of citizens who carry legally, and respecting them, understanding their mentality, and not creating a situation where there isn't one by treating them like somebody who is carrying illegally, just because they have a gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top