More open carry guys scaring the public

Status
Not open for further replies.
SocialAnarchist said:
Frankly, I never said that anyone said to make it illegal.
Click to expand...
It sure looked like you did when you said this:
SocialAnarchist said:
there are indeed members of this forum that are supposedly staunch Second ammendment advocates that are more than willing to stop my legal open carrying of a pistol.
Click to expand...
The only way someone can force you to stop your legal carry open carry of your pistol is to try to make it illegal. The key word here is "stop". You may have actually meant they think you shouldn't open carry, but the only way they can actually stop you is to make it illegal.
 
Glenn E. Meyer

A simple example to show that the 'it's legal' mantra is to simplistic. That's the whine of some OC folks who want to posture.

Again, all kinds of things are legal, and yet are unacceptable to many people. Something is either legal or not.

BTW - you can carry in most theater in TX (until the Chipolte-oids show up).

Good for Texas, where you can shoot someone for walking on your lawn without permission. Talk about unacceptable.

Also, someone actually did do what I said - not a gun but wearing the thong, he would bicycle up and down our hipster market area to astound the throngs with his thong.

When people ignore him he will go away. he is an exhibitionist who gets off on shocking people.

Being cool with it - so how does one with situational awareness in the movie theatre distinguish between an Aurora style killer and the Chipolte-oid?

Good question. But if he has not threatened anyone, or pointed his gun at anyone, what is the justification for shooting him? Especially in Texas where you said taking a gun into a theater isn't illegal.

Don't tell me that someone steeped in the Cooper Codes isn't tuning up a touch when seeing a Chipolte-oid?

Probably so.

Here's a hypothetical for you. Sorry if you don't like it. The research is fairly clear that folks and police might overreact to a person of color (African-American, Arab appearing) misinterpret common objects for firearms. So if the common gun carrier was faced with such a person doing the Chipolte walk, might it be misinterpreted. Certainly, the Black Panthers in CA weren't praised for their appearance.

Perception may be everything, but that doesn't mean that someone legally carrying a gun can be shot by someone else who misinterprets the reason for carrying the gun. The problem with hypotheticals is that there is no way to prove your point.

I'm sorry, I see nothing useful in the OC of long arms in the manner with we have seen beyond posturing.

I have not disagreed with this.
Click to expand...

My point has been the complete intolerance by some for any and all open carry that doesn't meet their narrow minded criteria.
 
What would the justification be for shooting the guy if he hasn't pointed the EBR at anyoe or threatened them?
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten the news the last ten years?

1. general rule. A CHLer may employ deadly force if they reasonably believe they or another are in fear of death of grievous bodily harm. State by state lingo varies.

2. intruder enters with unslung rifle.

Thats instant fear of an armed robbery/potential execution of witnesses, or yet another massmurdering psycho.

There's a strong chance someone opening up would get nobilled without batting an eye.
 
jimbob86 said:
While no one here is saying that long gun OC should be illegal, nigh everyone is arguing that is should be socially unacceptable. Is that about the size of it?
Click to expand...
Jimbob86, I continue to be amazed at your utter lack of understanding. I can only assume it's intentional and it's your way of trying to make your point, but it's getting extremely tiring.

No, I'm not saying it SHOULD BE unacceptable, I'm saying it usually IS unacceptable to much of the general public. That's a fact. And these rallies are backfiring and making it EVEN MORE unacceptable to the general public. And this is the general public who gets to vote on our gun rights. So we have to be very careful when -- and how -- we decide to open carry long guns, because I think it's a right worth preserving. But like many rights, it should be used wisely and responsibly.


Jimbob86: How in the world do you not understand this by now? I'll ask you a third time, and maybe I'll get an answer eventually: Do you think these open-carry protests in private businesses with long guns are a good idea? Even after all the ground we've lost because of it?
 
Theohazard

Originally Posted by SocialAnarchist
Frankly, I never said that anyone said to make it illegal.
Click to expand...

It sure looked like you did when you said this:

Originally Posted by SocialAnarchist
there are indeed members of this forum that are supposedly staunch Second ammendment advocates that are more than willing to stop my legal open carrying of a pistol.
Click to expand...

The only way someone can force you to stop your legal carry open carry of your pistol is to try to make it illegal. The key word here is "stop". You may have actually meant they think you shouldn't open carry, but the only way they can actually stop you is to make it illegal.
Click to expand...

When I have a poster on another topic on this forum tell me that I shouldn't open carry and the only people that should are those in the wild west or in the woods that looks to me like someone trying to stop me.

The gun rights crowd is hysterical in their division. We all stick together until someone does something someone else doesn't deem right or necessary. Like open carry.

Look I think owning a .50 caliber rifle is silly for me, I have no place to shoot one and the cost would probably bankrupt me. I intensly dislike Glock handguns, always have. I am not sure that people that hang lights, and lasers, and all kinds of optics, on an AR-15 are right in their head. But here is the difference between me and those trying to tell me I shouldn't open carry my XDs. Because all the things I said are legal to own and do, I won't try to tell you not to own or do them. No matter how much I wouldn't do them. THAT is called protecting and respecting each other's rights.
 
What would the justification be for shooting the guy if he hasn't pointed the EBR at anyoe or threatened them?
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten the news the last ten years?

1. general rule. A CHLer may employ deadly force if they reasonably believe they or another are in fear of death of grievous bodily harm. State by state lingo varies.

2. intruder enters with unslung rifle.

Thats instant fear of an armed robbery/potential execution of witnesses, or yet another massmurdering psycho.

There's a strong chance someone opening up would get nobilled without batting an eye.
Click to expand...

I have forgotten nothing. If he has threatened no one and pointed the rifle at no one, where is the reasonable belief that you are in fear of death or grevious bodily harm? I have no problem with drawing your weapon, confronting said individual and ordering them to put the weapon down. If they do not comply, or raise the weapon to fire, then further action is necessary and shooting them may be what happens next.

Your justification sounds a lot like people who shoot the guy stealing their TV in the back as he leaves with it. Legal? Yes, in some places. Necessary? Not likely because where is the danger?
 
My point has been the complete intolerance by some for any and all open carry that doesn't meet their narrow minded criteria.
Click to expand...
Then take it up in a different thread. This is about the carry of long guns in public places, not about open carry in general.
 
Glenn E. Meyer

Good for Texas, where you can shoot someone for walking on your lawn without permission. Talk about unacceptable.
Click to expand...

That is not true.
Click to expand...

From the state senator that wrote the law in Texas:

This means that if we are standing in our front yard, a mall, a grocery store, or any place we have a right to be legally, we are not required by law to retreat but may defend ourselves if attacked.
Click to expand...

You have to feel threatened or attacked. Which has quite a broad definition.
 
If, in fact, openly carrying a long gun is legal in the areas that these demonstrations are occurring what is the issue? Is it the manner that they are open carrying, OR is it that they are open carrying a firearm that some of you don't believe they should be open carrying? Because if you believe it is the weapon they are carrying and not the manner then what are you willing to take away next?
 
Quote:
Good for Texas, where you can shoot someone for walking on your lawn without permission. Talk about unacceptable.

That is not true.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. You can only shoot them if they are stealing your lawn gnomes or disparaging the superioty of Texas barbeque over all others. Come on, know the law! :D
 
Last edited:
I have forgotten nothing. If he has threatened no one and pointed the rifle at no one, where is the reasonable belief that you are in fear of death or grevious bodily harm? I have no problem with drawing your weapon, confronting said individual and ordering them to put the weapon down.
Click to expand...

Of course he did. Walking into a restaurant with a loaded rifle is a prima facae threat of lethal force.

If you have no probelem with a someone drawing on the OCer then you've just expressly agreed that the OCer is presenting an imminent threat.

ELse he couldn't draw in the first place.
 
They have to be irreplaceable gnomes.

As far as a patron shooting someone who was carrying like Short Chipolte-oid being nobilled - perhaps not. It would be interesting to see what a jury thought

The makeup of the jury would be of major concern to both sets of lawyers.

Is reasonable doubt there, with Shorty having his finger almost on the trigger?

Hmmm?
 
I'd contend it would be hard pressed to make it to a jury.

The defendant's attorney screams "Aurora!" to high heaven. What DA is going to try to push this for a charge on a grand jury? As noted in the Chilis Youtube, at least one of these guys has a three point sling with his hand on the grip/trigger. That screams someone looking to engage because they are WALKING INTO A RESTAURANT WITH A COCKED AND LOCKED RIFLE.


Make it even more interesting. make the defendant a soccer mom.

The sad thing is, I'm completely fine with OC of pistolwear, and OC of long rifles in the appropriate setting.
 
Last edited:
If, in fact, openly carrying a long gun is legal in the areas that these demonstrations are occurring what is the issue?
Click to expand...
You're going around in circles here. Nobody said it was illegal, nor has anyone said they want it to be illegal.

But illegal and unwise are two different things. I can buy an old panel van, paint "free candy" on the side, and drive it around in front of the local grammar school. I'm not breaking any laws, right?

Somehow, I'm guessing free-speech advocates won't be cheering me on for that.

Because if you believe it is the weapon they are carrying and not the manner then what are you willing to take away next?
Click to expand...
Again, nobody's talking about taking anything away. Let's drop that line of reasoning.
 
Then Tom Servo...What is the point and what do you hope to accomplish?

People act stupid in the country all the time. Hell, some we even elect to high government offices. Stupid for the most part isn't illegal. Unacceptable isn't illegal.

To me these people are either just plain idiots, or in reality anti-gunners doing damage. But either way, I doubt they can be stopped.
 
To be billed - NOT a lawyer - I think you just have to have a preponderance of evidence that a crime occurred as compared to beating a reasonable doubt standard. Given a couple of cases in TX and some nationally, certain jurisdictions might go for you.

Frank and Spats probably could comment better on that. So would an antigun DA prosecute a lesser degree gun nut for shooting a higher degree gun nut on the continuum of gunnutiness? The mind boggles.

How about a brandishing charge if you just drew on such folks?
 
SocialAnarchist said:
What is the point and what do you hope to accomplish?

People act stupid in the country all the time. Hell, some we even elect to high government offices. Stupid for the most part isn't illegal. Unacceptable isn't illegal.

To me these people are either just plain idiots, or in reality anti-gunners doing damage. But either way, I doubt they can be stopped.
Click to expand...

When people do stupid things, are we to simply say "Ah well... people do stupid things. Cest La Vie." or shall we tell them (and others) that's it's stupid and they should maybe think about NOT being stupid.

It seems pretty obvious. What we hope to accomplish is that they'll stop doing stupid things that have an over all negative impact on 2A rights and have a strong tendency to undo in minutes the good work done over many years time by real 2A activists.

At the very least, in a generic sense, most sensible folks try to distance themselves both physically and ideologically from unsensible folks. Why wouldn't we do the same thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top