OK Constitutional Carry Is Five Days Old

[MTT TL]

n other places it can be part of a political movement that results in public and police acceptance.

Or, as other have pointed out, more restrictive laws and business policies.

Condemning Jimmy Jackwagon for exercising a valid right clumsily in a strategic effort to upset no one can't be ultimately effective.

IMO Jimmy is trying to trigger people. He is trying to upset them on purpose. When it works and he gets arrested he does what everyone does when they get arrested and claim he never meant to do that, or didn't know the law or "pick an excuse". When he gets kicked out and barred he then claims that "the place" is anti-gun. Most everywhere is anti-jerk. The idiots make it anti-gun by being a jerk with a gun.

 

[TXAZ]

Just because can, doesn’t mean it’s prudent or you should.

 

[zukiphile]

Or, as other have pointed out, more restrictive laws and business policies.

Sic hoc ergo propter hoc? If you had an OC rally in CA and thereafter restrictions were passed, is that the result of OC? Or is that a one party system that was going to restrict rights even without any rally?

In Ohio, OC was necessary very early on. It was legal on the books, but police arrested people for it anyway. It was illegal in fact.

IMO Jimmy is trying to trigger people. He is trying to upset them on purpose. When it works and he gets arrested he does what everyone does when they get arrested and claim he never meant to do that, or didn't know the law or "pick an excuse". When he gets kicked out and barred he then claims that "the place" is anti-gun. Most everywhere is anti-jerk. The idiots make it anti-gun by being a jerk with a gun.

I used to enjoy a drink or two. Some people are jerks when they drink, and they mostly seem to be jerks when they don't drink too.

I see Jimmy as analogous to a fellow with a beer in his hand the day after the 21st Am. passed, drunk and asking what the PO is going to do about it. It will get old, and he'll go back to his other poor life choices.

I'll guess that businesses with a policy against patrons with rifles didn't have to wait for Jimmy to do his thing to come to their conclusions. I'll also guess that some businesses kick Jimmy out and don't get wound up about normal people.

 

[davidsog]

With guys like these who needs anti-gunners.

What an embarrassment. This is why there are labels like "gun nut".

 

[J.G. Terry]

What to do

You can see the mood in the country changing. The radical anti-gunners head's are exactly like the radical pro-gunners. Nobody is going to change their mind. The mass of undecided individuals should be the focus of attention. These people do have a right to be apprehensive when faced with an openly armed stranger. This is a rational response. Every time somebody pulls these auditor stunts it hurts us. I have the strength of my convictions but want no part of mall ninja's or auditors. Doing something freaky with a gun to make guns OK does not make sense.

Added: How if you and your family were eating dinner in a good restaurant. In walks a clone of the "auditor" with AR and extra loaded magazines plus a handgun. In that instant how would you feel. Obviously, this is a pro 2A person making statement-right? Would you jump up and say," what are your intentions?"

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am as pro2A as they come. Soccer mom votes. Jimmy Jackwagon open carrying his M-4gery into Walmart makes a bunch of folks anti gun.

I didn't say anything in defense of Walmart commandos and their M4geries. Please go back and read my post. The topic of this thread is Oklahoma's new permitless carry law. To most [sane] people, that's going to mean a discussion about openly carrying a self defense handgun. I specifically stated that in my post, along with references to carrying in a quality holster.

 

[dfwkid]

Aquila is absolutely correct. We need to be concerned about our image to the general public, especially to Suzie Soccermom. If we behave ourselves and present a squeaky clean image
,think Eagle Scouts, the public will be kinder to the cause.

 

[armoredman]

They have Constitutional Carry in that they can carry both openly and concealed without permit, license, etc., like AZ? Ours worked very well and continues to do so.

 

[USNRet93]

You can see the mood in the country changing. The radical anti-gunners head's are exactly like the radical pro-gunners. Nobody is going to change their mind. The mass of undecided individuals should be the focus of attention. These people do have a right to be apprehensive when faced with an openly armed stranger. This is a rational response. Every time somebody pulls these auditor stunts it hurts us. I have the strength of my convictions but want no part of mall ninja's or auditors. Doing something freaky with a gun to make guns OK does not make sense.

Added: How if you and your family were eating dinner in a good restaurant. In walks a clone of the "auditor" with AR and extra loaded magazines plus a handgun. In that instant how would you feel. Obviously, this is a pro 2A person making statement-right? Would you jump up and say," what are your intentions?"

This is the reality. It's great to ruminate on the value of individual rights and the protection of those rights but practically speaking, sitting there enjoying your pizza with your kids when a heavily armed 'auditor' strides in trying to 'make a statement' about his rights, the results are predictable....
BTW, open carry is legal here in the republic but again, the results are predictable...

 

[zukiphile]

These people do have a right to be apprehensive when faced with an openly armed stranger. This is a rational response.

Those people see armed strangers everyday without any apprehension, so it isn't the mere fact of his being armed and a stranger that reasonably gives rise to the apprehension.

People do have a right to be apprehensive about anyone, armed or not. They similarly have a right to entertain doubts and anxieties about what others say and write, or about people with different religious practices. Juan Williams was famously dismissed from National Public Radio for admitting to apprehension he felt on an airplane seeing people in muslim garb. Those apprehensions should not be the basis for retreat from the defense of the rights involved. I wouldn't have said what Williams did, but I wouldn't condemn his statement for its potential damage to other speakers either.

In the original story, the commentary indicates that the grill owner no longer allows people with rifles to bring them in, as is his right, though he did already have a sign requesting that people keep their arms holstered. This doesn't seem to be a change in his policy.

 

[reynolds357]

I didn't say anything in defense of Walmart commandos and their M4geries. Please go back and read my post. The topic of this thread is Oklahoma's new permitless carry law. To most [sane] people, that's going to mean a discussion about openly carrying a self defense handgun. I specifically stated that in my post, along with references to carrying in a quality holster.

The same law allows both.

 

[zukiphile]

The same law allows both.

Only if Walmart allows it, right?

 

[J.G. Terry]

A couple of bubbles off plumb

This is a couple of bubbles off plumb. Being apprehensive about a stranger and a stranger armed to the teeth in a restaurant is the same. That's ludicrous. Especially, if he presents like the "auditor." Down here auditor might not like the data he collected. There is world of difference between a properly holstered hand gun and a black rifle with ammo etc.

Point was made this thread is about open carry with a handgun. No problem with me unless his has no restraints on a holster made of cloth. Otherwise, I'm mellowing on the topic.

Let's play this pizza scenario through. You have between one and half and three seconds to respond to the armed auditor in the pizza parlor. Would I look elegant wearing ear protection eating out?

 

[zukiphile]

This is a couple of bubbles off plumb. Being apprehensive about a stranger and a stranger armed to the teeth in a restaurant is the same. That's ludicrous.

In establishing plumb, it may helpful to know what you've read.

Those people see armed strangers everyday without any apprehension, so it isn't the mere fact of his being armed and a stranger that reasonably gives rise to the apprehension.

People do have a right to be apprehensive about anyone, armed or not.

Neither is an assertion that being "apprehensive about a stranger and a stranger armed to the teeth in a restaurant is the same".

Let's play this pizza scenario through. You have between one and half and three seconds to respond to the armed auditor in the pizza parlor. Would I look elegant wearing ear protection eating out?

I would never seek to deprive you of elegance in a pizza parlor.

Most of us, even the soccer moms amongst us, see people carrying in the open every day and it causes no consternation precisely because we see that routinely. That we are accustomed to seeing strangers carrying in the open nearly daily should suggest to you that apprehension isn't a rational response simply because one sees an armed stranger.

That doesn't mean this self-identified auditor was smart, welcomed or even screwed together correctly.

 

[J.G. Terry]

This is over the top.

This over the top. Open carry is different than appearing with an assault rifle. I suspect that coming in with a drawn handgun would get similar results. We are drifting. Coming to the conclusion that everybody in the joint is at risk is not irrational. The situation should be seen as a threat. How would handle the situation. Offer the potential shooter a slice? Many people are apprehensive about open carry. They do not know if this person is a nutball or a member of the gun toting soccer mom collectively. I'll be glad to explain this again for the third time.

 

[zukiphile]

I'll be glad to explain this again for the third time.

Let me suggest understanding what you've read rather than restating your misunderstanding of what you've read.

Open carry is different than appearing with an assault rifle.

Unless the "assault rifle" [sic] is concealed, carrying it falls within the universe of open carry.

Coming to the conclusion that everybody in the joint is at risk is not irrational.

Yet most of us see open carriers every day, and apprehension isn't our reaction. Why? The answer can't merely be that it is an openly armed stranger, or people would experience this apprehension routinely.

They do not know if this person is a nutball or a member of the gun toting soccer mom collectively.

Indeed, though this is also true of any stranger, armed or not, and we routinely meet armed strangers and don't experience this apprehension.

Why?

 

[J.G. Terry]

I lied. I'm not fixing to keep repeating the same stuff. This is becoming the quintessential example spectators not knowing who is who.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This discussion has reached the point where nothing constructive has been added for several posts. Enough is enough.