LEO and open carry

[kinggabby]

There seems to be a common theme espoused within this thread's posts. They mostly seem to be concerned with a bad guy taking away an OC'rs weapon. That may be a legitimate concern.

Is it possible that a bad guy might walk up and take an OC'rs gun out of a LIII retention holster? Maybe - but probably not and probably not without a struggle. Add to that, that so far in the many, many threads that have covered this topic no one has yet to produce a single case where a bad guy took a gun away from an OC'r anywhere.

That said: There are a variety of holsters that sport Level III retention. I own one made by Blackhawk. I'm here to tell ya that if you don't know what you're doing you aren't gonna get that gun out of that holster. A bad guy certainly isn't gonna be able to do it without knowng how. Point being: A wise man who chooses to OC will at the very least get a retention holster and get training in how to retain it if necessary.

But as we all know, being wise is not a universal quality within the human race.

And wise or not: Open Carry isn't about being wise nor whether or not it is the best strategy for self defense. OC is about the right to keep and bear arms and that right not being infringed. It's about choice - a choice the founders protected by enumerating it within the 2nd Amendment; a choice that has been taken away for many reasons, in contradiction to the prohibition of the government from doing so. Most, if not all of which, boil down to the control of law abiding responsible citizens. They have nothing to do with crime (we all know that gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns) or the bogus argument of safety.

More people need to remember that: OC is about being able to exercise a natural right enumerated in the very foundation of our system of laws. Whether or not one chooses to exercise the right is irrelevant. Having the right is all that matters.

Look at post 53 also here is the link I posted in that thread. http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/dec/03/4/teen-homicide-suspects-had-felony-convictions-ar-1510369/

 

[gmplaster]

Overall, it is positive that so many are willing to open carry. imo it helps educate all of us.

 

[oklacowboy]

Open Carry isn't about being wise nor whether or not it is the best strategy for self defense[/B]. OC is about the right to keep and bear arms and that right not being infringed. It's about choice - a choice the founders protected by enumerating it within the 2nd Amendment; a choice that has been taken away for many reasons, in contradiction to the prohibition of the government from doing so. Most, if not all of which, boil down to the control of law abiding responsible citizens. They have nothing to do with crime (we all know that gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns) or the bogus argument of safety.

More people need to remember that: OC is about being able to exercise a natural right enumerated in the very foundation of our system of laws. Whether or not one chooses to exercise the right is irrelevant. Having the right is all that matters.[/QUOTE]VERY very well said!!!

 

[Werewolf]

Look at post 53 also here is the link I posted in that thread. http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/dec/03/4/teen-homicide-suspects-had-felony-convictions-ar-1510369/

That's one:

Tyler, 48, had a concealed-carry permit, but his handgun was plainly visible that night in his holster, Johnson said.

"The suspects walk in and one immediately reached for Mr. Tyler's gun," Johnson said. Tyler did not draw his weapon.

According to court papers, Smith took Tyler's gun during a struggle and shot Tyler in the chest after the victim chased Smith inside the store. Authorities said they could not confirm that Tyler was killed with his own gun until they get the results of forensics testing. They also are awaiting test results to show whether the gun used to kill Tyler was the one used to shoot Cosby.

OK...

I'll give you that one. But there's two sides to that coin. Check out this link: The good guy can take away a criminal's gun too.

The world isn't a safe place. It will not become any safer for us by making it less free.

Ignore the safety arguments. It's not about safety it's about one's right to choose to exercise a right.
Ignore the responsible exercise of rights argument for if you don't we'll have all our rights prohibited (Wait! What? - that's already happening). In addition we have laws, many, many laws to punish those who exercise rights irresponsibly.

The only relevant argument in regards to OC is the freedom argument. Don't believe that, then take a real hard look at where compromise, do it for the children, safety is number one and all the other laws put in place in the name of those things and all the rest has gotten us.

 

[Norman]

That's one:


OK...

I'll give you that one. But there's two sides to that coin. Check out this link: The good guy can take away a criminal's gun too.

The world isn't a safe place. It will not become any safer for us by making it less free.

Ignore the safety arguments. It's not about safety it's about one's right to choose to exercise a right.
Ignore the responsible exercise of rights argument for if you don't we'll have all our rights prohibited (Wait! What? - that's already happening). In addition we have laws, many, many laws to punish those who exercise rights irresponsibly.

The only relevant argument in regards to OC is the freedom argument. Don't believe that, then take a real hard look at where compromise, do it for the children, safety is number one and all the other laws put in place in the name of those things and all the rest has gotten us.

All of what 2 people disagreed with the passing of the bill? Most the posts about safety are just pointing out that OC is dumb, for the most part. You said no one pointed out an OCer getting disarmed, there is one. And nice try with the good guy disarming rapist, but that was a rifle not in a holster. Apple to oranges

 

[grizzly97]

All of what 2 people disagreed with the passing of the bill? Most the posts about safety are just pointing out that OC is dumb, for the most part. You said no one pointed out an OCer getting disarmed, there is one. And nice try with the good guy disarming rapist, but that was a rifle not in a holster. Apple to oranges

One of the main reason's you will hear more stories about OC'ers being disarmed is because it turns into a story because a crime has taken place. Meanwhile, most of the time when a thug see's a person OC'ing and decides not to commit the crime, nothing get reported because no crime was commited. Then, there are times when it does get reported. Take this story for example https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/the-ordinary-guy/robbery-what-robbery/ . Just like the news, they tell stories about who got shot today, instead of saying "roughly 5,260 people lawfully and successfully defended themselves with firearms today." To me, like many others, it's about getting our rights back. It may be one small step at a time, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[mons meg]

This has been hashed out before, but to me it can be distilled thusly:

1) As a free citizen, you may be opposed to open carry, such is your right.

2) I am also a free citizen, and as such you may *not* oppose MY chosen carry method.

3) That's it.


Edit: As Werewolf said, this is about Constitutional rights, not quibbling about tactics. I think it's very interesting that a hundred years ago, open carry was for the upstanding citizen, and concealed carry was for the "ruffians" and other undesirables, which is what led to the original "unlawful carry" statute that is today much despised for its arbitrariness. Nowadays, OC is often criticized as being for braggarts and wannabe cops. I can't see the logic, in Oklahoma of all places.

mini rant off

 

[53convert]

as a LEO with 30 years on the street of Metro...............and now retired thank god,
I have never had a problem with the concealed carry nor will I have with the open carry. Those who choose to do so, either style, have NEVER been a law dawg problem.
The snop doggie dogs and crank heads were, are and will continue to be the problem.

Will I open carry......nope except on my own ranch....but not around others..........

Give Glock a break, you asked, he answered, if ya dont like his answer then just walk away................He really wont care, and your blood pressure wont go through the roof.

 

[tRidiot]

1) As a free citizen, you may be opposed to open carry, such is your right.

2) I am also a free citizen, and as such you may *not* oppose MY chosen carry method.

I would clarify this as you may oppose, but may not infringe upon my chosen carry method. Opposition is fine... it means the holding of an opinion and working towards having that adopted.

 

[okiebryan]

I would clarify this as you may oppose, but may not infringe upon my chosen carry method. Opposition is fine... it means the holding of an opinion and working towards having that adopted.

Technically, you are right. But I took a deeper meaning from what he actually said. If you believe in the RKBA, really believe in that right and the freedom that comes with it, then you may choose your carry method, but would be hypocritical to deny him the same choice.