For The Open Carry Crowd

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am thinking there were not 20 or 30 open carriers there in camo, helmets, gas masks, and bulletproof vests
Click to expand...

I've only heard portions of the interview excerpted on NPR. In those portions, the Chief stated there were multiple open carry people with rifles. No numbers given and no description of additional gear.

So, I'm wondering if the situation above was a hypothetical or intended to describe that specific event. Because there certainly have been protests in the DFW area, Arlington especially, in which there were 20-30 protestors with rifles, and some of whom had LBE and gas masks.

Dallas also hosts a wing of the New Black Panther Party that regularly dresses up in such gear for media photographers and makes a point of patrolling neighborhoods. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they were present at Friday's protest - though I've never seen a picture of more than 15 of them in one place before.

In any case, DPD deserves an enormous amount of credit for keeping a cool head in that situation. For all the talk of police using deadly force irresponsibly, the Dallas police sorted out a difficult situation and without causing harm to peaceable protestors.
 
The news feed I saw stated what I stated, concerning the Dallas incident, with the numbers of carriers & the gear/apparel worn, along with two men & one woman arrested.

It was describing that specific event.

As I said- IF true, it illustrates the main point I was making, which is that such open carry displays can be very foolish & can create certain risks.

In saying this, I again make no political or racial commentary, nor do I single out any one individual.
It's the practice, not the person.

Think it over very carefully.
You gain little for yourself as an individual & you do more harm than help to the image of responsible gun owners in general.
Denis
 
Our town code (Floyd, VA) prohibits carrying any dangerous weapons, concealed or open, to a parade or demonstration:

Section 11-3. Participants carrying dangerous weapons.
No person parading or demonstrating pursuant to a permit issued under the provisions of this article shall carry any dangerous weapon; provided, that the town council may, in the exercise of sound discretion, include in such permit such variations from this section as it may consider appropriate for members of color guards, drill teams, lodges, and other persons by whom the display weapons upon the occasion of such parade or demonstration would not arouse anxiety on the part of spectators or constitute a threat to the maintenance of law and order and the preservation of the public peace.

TomNJVA
 
I just can't see any logical reason to carry a rifle to a "protest" in a city.
Click to expand...

The "logic" of it is going to depend on your opinion. It's a visual expression of our right of FREE SPEECH as much as it is our RKBA.

From a practical point of view carrying a slung (and most likely EMPTY) rifle at a rally is more a free speech matter than anything else. Its done to make a point, its not done with the thought the gun might be needed, or used.

One news report I say said that of the 3 persons "in custody" (not sure if that means arrested or not) 2 were released, and the third was charged with a misdemeanor, as they were not legally allowed to possess a gun.

I would also point out that NO ONE expected the situation to be what it became.
 
Obviously no one "expected" what happened.
Part of my point is that the unexpected, combined with a lack of thought beforehand, can result in disastrous consequences.

Balance out your "right to make a statement" with your "right to die needlessly from poorly thought out actions" combined with the very real negative perception issues by the general public.

Yes, it's a visual expression, but a pointless one with more negative than positive aspects.
Denis
 
the third was charged with a misdemeanor, as they were not legally allowed to possess a gun.
Click to expand...

Nothing like helping someone illegally use a gun at a later date like making illegal possession of a firearm by a prohibited person a misdemeanor. Enforce the existing laws....
 
The "logic" of it is going to depend on your opinion. It's a visual expression of our right of FREE SPEECH as much as it is our RKBA.
Click to expand...

It certainly is a visual expression of these things, as I said to a couple of my more liberal friends over lunch. What I didn't say is the problem I have with this expression is it ultimately hurts our position. In the current political climate, and with all the social unrest, our 2A rights hang in the balance. We can insist we have the legal right to open carry a long-gun to a protest where the tension is high and civil disobedience possible, right up to the point where the legislature and courts say we can't.

This is not as simple than 'I don't do it, so you don't need to'. This is a matter of picking our battles for the sake of the objective IMO. Our objective is to keep and bear arms. In a perfectly libertarian world our 2A gives us the right to carry what and where we want. In reality the 2A gives us the rights granted by law.

Yes, I clearly understand that ultimately the 2A is about protection from tyranny. I also understand that despotism often happens a little at a time. With that said, our system gives ultimate power to the will of the people, represented by those we elect. I can beat my chest and demand my God given, natural rights, bit I am still bound by the rule of law, unless we decide like our forefathers we must take action and "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." This is not as easily done as said.
 
Many things "used" to be perfectly legal in public, until people pushed to far. Sometimes to raise awareness of the legality of something will lead to its own demise.
 
Originally posted by DPris:

The few screw it up for the many.
Time & time again
Click to expand...

I totally agree. What I do not agree with, is that this is legitimate "open carry".

Originally posted by DPris:

apparently 20-30 protestors showed up for the event with rifles openly carried, Tejas being an open-carry state.
And wearing camo. And helmets. And gas masks. And "bullet-proof" vests.
Click to expand...

That was making a political statement....just as the two Mall Ninja goons in Starbucks(or whatever). Using these as an example against OCing is no different than using those folks that openly post about ignoring the rights of property owners and entering premises posted against CWCing as an example against CWC by responsible gun owners. Both are making a statement and both are examples of irresponsible gun owners doing absolutely nuttin to help our cause. Neither means that legitimate exercise of either right is wrong, but that seems to be the point that is trying to be made in this thread. Just because a few irresponsible idiots brought a gun and dressed like terrorists to a protest, that most folks knew had a good chance of becoming violent, now are becoming the poster children for fellow gun owners who feel private citizens should not open carry.

Originally posted by DPris:

It's the practice, not the person.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it's not the practice but that irresponsible person. Done properly, responsibly and with discretion, it is no different than CWCing. Gun ownership may be a right, but it still demands gun owners be responsible. One does not have to be highly intelligent, nor do folks need to be practical and always use common sense in order to buy a gun. This is what many(actually most folks here) here preach here every day. Then they are surprised when those same folks do something irresponsible and stupid. The examples given in the OP are not of open carry, but of irresponsible gun ownership. The title of this thread should reflect that instead of putting down the majority of responsible open carry folks. Why do folks not title a thread, "For the CWC Crowd!" when posting about the idiot that shot himself or the guy in the next stall when dropping his drawers in the rest room? Really no difference. It comes down to responsible gun ownership, regardless of whether it's hunting, target shooting, OCing or CWCing. Being irresponsible in any of those or any other gun related scenario and you will still look stupid and bring down criticism from antis...and you deserve it. We responsible gun owners tho, do not deserve criticism from fellow gun owners just because a few idiots are irresponsible.

Originally Posted by DPris:

In my mind, as a retired cop who's worked a hostile crowd a time or two, officers on scene deserve the highest amount of credit possible for the fact that two men & one woman were ARRESTED, and not SHOT, in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

I agree with this also, but think it had to do with those cops being responsible and informed of the fact there were OCers at the protest to start with. That and those weapons were not being pointed at anyone.

Originally posted by Snyper:

It's largely a matter of luck that none of the "open carry" advocates were shot.
Click to expand...

It's largely a matter of luck that more innocent civilians in general didn't get shot. The fact that none of the OCers didn't even get shot at, means they were not singled out or targeted by the "bad guy", even tho they had the potential to take him out. So much for that theory.
 
I have long thought this. Honestly, I've seen a video of a cop interacting with a kooky "I can carry this FAL slung up front with a three point sling while I walk by a busy street to stir crap if I want." The cop was very knowledgeable, professional, and courteous. At the end of the day, the guy looked like a clown and didn't even realize it (he was the one that filmed and uploaded the video).

At any rate, there is a time and place for anything. If you stop by the country store with am rifle slung during a hunting trip, no one will likely bat an eye. Walking down the middle of main street in a large town just to make a statement? You will attract attention, and not the positive kind. Even in more pro 2A areas. I used to frequently OC a pistol outside of town and still do at times. Never had anyone so much as look at me funny. Going with my daughter to buy a purse at Kohls, I Ccw. I also believe its much more tactically sound. There are quite a few scenarios where a good guy with a gun has stopped a bad guy, even excluding cops. Many of those instances involved the good guy having the element of surprise. Kinda hard to do that when you OC.
 
My issue with open carry is not necessarily the fact that someone is showing tehy have a gun, but more that not everyone is going to be trained in weapon retention and can easily have their gun taken away from them while grabbing a can or corn off of the top shelf...
 
Our rights, all of them, should never be curtailed to satisfy the needs or comfort of any particular group.
But, as in all things, common sense should prevail.
There's a time and place for 'most everything.
 
Aware that the vast majority of states allow for open carry, yet despite that as an argument alone, what was the real selling point that sealed the deal in Texas that was able to convince their legislature to go along with legalizing open carry?
 
When these active shooter events happen, many people armchair quarterback what would happen if a good guy with a gun happened to engage the bad guy.

My answer is this; you are probably going to get shot. If not by the bad guy, you will definitely get hit by the next good guy with a gun that shows up.
Click to expand...

And yet you show no evidence of that ever happening.

Off the top of my head I remember one incident where there was a shooter in a tower on a college campus and the first responders were the local civilians who were carrying their guns with them, mostly in the back windows of their pickup trucks. The bad guy was pretty much pinned down until the cops showed up to storm the tower and take the guy out.
 
When these active shooter events happen, many people armchair quarterback what would happen if a good guy with a gun happened to engage the bad guy.

My answer is this; you are probably going to get shot. If not by the bad guy, you will definitely get hit by the next good guy with a gun that shows up.
Click to expand...

If you believe this, then why would you bother to carry at all?
 
armedleo said:
...what was the real selling point that sealed the deal in Texas that was able to convince their legislature to go along with legalizing open carry?
Click to expand...
Although it's always difficult to pin down exactly what prompts a legislative body to act, IMHO it was a general political shift in favor of gun rights, helped along by years of campaigning by the TSRA (props!) and popularity and success of the TX CHL (now LTC) program.

IMHO OC was legalized in TX not because of the antics of groups like OCTC, but despite them. :rolleyes: I'd go so far as to say that such groups almost torpedoed the effort several times.

That all being said, let's be clear that I'm discussing OC of handguns, which had been illegal in TX since the 19th century. Open-carrying rifles is a different matter politically, and it's my understanding that this is what the Dallas marchers were doing.
 
TimSr said:
rickyrick said:
When these active shooter events happen, many people armchair quarterback what would happen if a good guy with a gun happened to engage the bad guy.

My answer is this; you are probably going to get shot. If not by the bad guy, you will definitely get hit by the next good guy with a gun that shows up.
Click to expand...
If you believe this, then why would you bother to carry at all?
Click to expand...
Why would one bother to carry at all? Active shooter events are statistically very rare. Most people carry to defend themselves from more run-of-the-mill crimes like armed robbery, carjacking, rape, mugging...

Let's not forget that the primary purpose of carrying a weapon is for self-defense and the defense of one's family, not for the tiny chance that one will be caught in the midst of a mass shooting.
 
That serves my point against open carry for me.
My gun is for me and my family's survival... That's why my gun is known only to me. I'll find a way out of the situation first or first priority
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top