I agree in a way but disagree in a way -

The libertarian in me says if its not harming me (if I'm witnessing someone open carry) then who cares if everyone around is open carrying, its nice to have the option depending on where you are that you don't have to dress for potential printing, etc -

The practical person in me says its

A) An easy way in some states for some uptight person to call the cops on a "person with a gun", or just in general to draw unwanted attention (and if we are carrying to protect ourselves why are we not being discreet)

B) If a baddie, ISIS, foam-mouthed rabid person was to stick up a place or go shooting at innocent bystanders don't you think they would take out the person who is openly carrying and thus a threat to them first?

I'm all about open carry on your property, out hunting or on hikes etc where you have some privacy from most of society, at the range where you have other like minded people around, etc - but walking around Austin TX with a pistol on your hip and 3 spare magazines just screams attention from the gun grabbers IMO and is really stretching


Should it be "outlawed"? Absolutely not, I think its just as important as the right to carry a concealed firearm - however, in some circumstances its just done to make a statement.

So you leave when a cop walks in the door?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. I find most of the time I see open carry it's as a demonstration of sorts in some family restaurant or other establishment where you are completely disregarding the other citizens just going about their daily activities.

Open carry on personal property, hunting, hiking, etc I'm totally cool with as that is not a typical situation where you will encounter a bunch of everyday people.

My thoughts against open carry in daily life stem from the thought (personal belief really, as both sides of the argument find data to support their particular position... much like climate change) that it invites a certain level conspicuousness whether from LEOs or from would be law-breakers. I think concealed carry is a much more effective way of possibly stopping a crime vs. possibly inciting one. As such open carry has the possibility to put the rest of the individuals there in harms way, vs. CC having the potential to provide some protection for the others there.

Depending on where I am and who I am with... sometimes. But no, not typically. But that is an apples/oranges comparison vs. a private citizen open carrying.

^I do agree with Eric though - if we are talking about the firearm itself being the thing of displeasure to see, then it would be no different to see cops at a diner -

The social aspect of a private citizen open carrying has to be a stigma that needs to be overcome though in my opinion. A guy with a gun on his hip even if its in open view of your family has no threat to you.

This is where you need to teach the young ones at a young age that is not taboo to see a firearm in public and its not a bad thing and its especially not a toy. The Eddie Eagle program is great for youngsters to teach safety and respect for firearms so they grow up in the right mindset.

You have to remember I come from NJ - where private citizens are not allowed to carry in any form outside the home. We are completely disarmed, UNLESS you are LEO whether active or retired, or politically connected in some way, or a felon disregarding the laws.

My state has been disarmed so long that yes private citizens would freak out if they saw someone open carrying.

The point that I want to make is that there should be no discernible difference between a private citizen carrying for protection, whether open or concealed, vs. an LEO who carries on the job every day - it is still there for the protection of ourselves and others.

Again, living in a state where the LEO's are "allowed" this protection for themselves and their families, while private citizens are not is a huge concern for me and a very large factor in my move to a state which respects and honors the 2nd Amendment.


In certain situations does it draw unwanted attention from some who are of a different mindset? Absolutely. But its of no harm to you or your family Joseph - just my .02 - That would be a great teachable moment for your young ones so that they grow up respecting and not fearing firearms.

Trust me the next San Bernardino shooter is not going to calmly be open carrying in Friendly's enjoying his pancakes in the booth over from you.

We have fundamental differences in beliefs that are not likely to be bridged on the internet.

LEO vs. private citizen is again, apples/oranges. I KNOW LEO's have undergone training and undergone a phsyc evaluation. Do some unstable cops slip through, of course. But I don't KNOW a private citizen open carrying is even doing so legally... I don't KNOW the gun is legal, don't KNOW he/she is trained, etc.

The argument for/against open carry, to me, is a d*ck measuring contest just to say a person can do it. There is no benefit to open carry vs concealed carry (and again, could be a negative or dangerous in certain situations). I am not trying to disarm private citizens, but I do want those carrying to have respect for the other individuals who may be "afraid" of firearms.

I am a firm believer in situational awareness. It's served me well and I would rather teach my kids to fear AND respect guns. This is why I will sometimes leave somewhere when a LEO walks in (the way other patrons respond, type of establishment, etc). Guns ARE dangerous no matter how you slice it. I have a few guns here and I would never expect my fellow citizens to be okay with me openly carrying them around.

BTW, Eddie Eagle is not a solution for gun safety in the home. Really, there is no situation in which having a gun in the home is 100% safe. But as gun owners you can teach your kids (way better than any children's cartoon) to respect guns. Personally, my kids won't touch one until they are 16 (with my knowledge obviously). If you are different, that's cool, and it's your prerogative as to how you teach your children firearm safety. But, back to open carry, you are not just affecting yourself and exercising your prerogative... you are forcing your beliefs on everyone around you for no benefit over concealed carry.

I am happy for you though that you are moving to a state that is more amenable to you enjoying your hobby and exercising your 2nd amendment right in a way that is more aligned with your beliefs. Congrats. :thumbup:

The Eddie Eagle was just an example but I agree it starts and ends with you the parent teaching at a young age - I've used the "if a kid knows not to touch the stove when its on because they will burn themselves" then they are old enough to start learning about firearm safety and respect -

I agree it all is dependent on us - and thanks for the kind words I am looking forward to moving and not stressing myself out every time I take my firearms to the range to go shooting - you have no idea how bad it is in NJ, I am not even supposed to stop and take a piss at a gas station.

I don't want to belabor the point, but really the only difference between concealed and open carry is that you can see the gun. The argument you make about not knowing a private citizen is doing things legally can be made against concealed carry too. Many states, like mine, are "shall issue" don't have any training requirements for concealed carry permits.

If you are worried about being near dangerous things, why do you get on the road? It's far more dangerous to be in a car than it is to be next to a holstered gun.

There are those who argue that open carry has advantages. Some of those are speed of drawing (not going to snag on your shirt) and also a simple deterrent because the armed person is clearly not a good target for a bad guy.

In terms of offending someone who's afraid of guns, I would say "tough". Their irrational fear doesn't trump my constitutional right. One could make a parallel to a rainbow flag sticker on a car offending a deeply religious person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right, living in TX... I have no idea how bad that would be, and while I don't CC yet, I do have plenty of friends who do so I can appreciate the right to do so. I will probably also begin CC in a few years after the kids get older.

Congrats again, and I'm sure your happy to not be risking UTI's anymore for fear of not being able to stop at those gas stations. ;)

Reductio ad absurdum. And you are making my point on the no training required for private citizens in certain situations.

I already agreed... both sides (like those on climate change) can find data to support their positions. You say it could be a deterrent, but it could also incite crime. To disregard this is being closed minded and obstinate.

Then you are disregarding your fellow citizens and are self-centered enough to not care, part of the problem with America as a whole if you ask me. CC is exercising your constitutional right. Making you cover the weapon is in no way infringing on the second amendment. The comparison about the rainbow flag sticker is again, an apples/oranges argument. That rainbow flag can't kill anyone.

Bottom line, those who are staunch no regulation gun supporters suffer from the same disease as those who are staunch anti-gun believers. They are blind to the feelings and concerns of their fellow citizens and unwilling to reach any sort of compromise. This is a general problem with the US in just about any sort of political/theological/ideological/social/fiscal belief, and is really an unfortunate situation for the country.

Joseph - I can respect your viewpoints on everything, doesn't necessarily mean I agree but I can respect it, probably helps that you are in TX and not speaking to me from the utopia of NYC or San Fran -

However I had to highlight that line in bold - the problem with that statement is once you start with "well the government will make you cover the firearm because its not allowed", then leads to "well the government thinks that you need a lot of training to qualify for this concealed carry license", followed by "there is too much danger to the public to have people carrying firearms, if you believe that you should carry a firearm you have to prove justifiable need to do so in front of a judge", which is what we have in NJ - and along the way, all you will hear is "xxx provision in no way infringes on the 2nd Amendment"

There was a large case lost in one of the circuits of appeals a couple years back from NJ which the guy was challenging the no-issue/justifiable need in our state and the appeals court upheld the lower court ruling which was that it "in no way infringed on the 2nd Amendment or Heller or McDonald cases" - Basically that ruling has kept NJ from getting its carry rights back as the anti-gun majority in the legislature would never pass a resolution removing "justifiable need" - there was something our governor did recently trying to add the words "serious threats" to the definition of justifiable need, technically giving a bit more lee-way in the possibility of a private citizen obtaining a carry permit and that tiny measure was stopped so fast by the legislature you couldn't even blink.


So that line does bite me a bit raw personally as I think its a slippery slope, again, I am changing my situation for the better and thank you for your well wishes, but in our state of 9 million plus people and living here my whole life, I realize how much of a bubble we the people have been grouped into, and there is a ton of crime in our inner cities.

But yes we don't have to agree on everything and its nice to share opinions even though they may not match.