NRA and OK2A work against open carry in parks and zoos.

[O4L]

On the original point, I'm not opposed to public trust parks banning open carry. CC IMO is more "polite" and so long as they're not trying to ban all carry, I think it's worth the compromise to get Constitutional Carry. JMO, YMMV!

I don't see where they had to make that compromise to get permitless carry. The votes weren't even close.

IMHO it is just political pandering and the NRA and OK2A apparently support the "compromise".

No matter how you slice it, laws against open carry are infringements on Constitutional carry.

 

[MacFromOK]

No matter how you slice it, laws against open carry are infringements on Constitutional carry.

Agreed.

I prefer CC, but some do not. Our 2A options shouldn't be limited just to pacify irrational fears.

OC being "less safe to the public" is pure fiction. It's much more likely to be a deterrent against crime rather than a cause for it.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[CorpsVet]

Agreed.

I prefer CC, but some do not. Our 2A options shouldn't be limited just to pacify irrational fears.

OC being "less safe to the public" is pure fiction. It's much more likely to be a deterrent against crime rather than a cause for it.

Just my 2 cents.

WELL SAID!

 

[Ethan N]

Besides the fact that we shouldn’t be adding more imaginary lines in the law, here’s a problem I see. When you walk to the edge of a municipal park, how do you know whether it is managed by a trust (so you can’t open carry), or it is managed by the city (so you can open carry)? A few people have tried to minimize the impact of this bill by saying it will only apply to a few parks like The Gathering Place, not all city parks. But what’s to stop a city from transferring all their parks to a trust to ban open carry in parks city-wide? How are we supposed to know the management structure of every municipal park we enter?

Even if I ask a city about their parks, they may give inaccurate information, or the status of parks may change at some later point in time without notice. The only safe thing to do will be not to open carry in any municipal park. So this bill is a de facto ban on open carry in all municipal parks.

 

[MacFromOK]

Concealed means concealed...

 

[Ethan N]

Concealed means concealed...

I don’t follow. Is this a response to my comments?

 

[MacFromOK]

I don’t follow. Is this a response to my comments?

More or less...

If you carry concealed, nobody will know you're carrying. So no problem, unless you have to use your weapon.

In which case, the old adage may/may not apply to you:

"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Your call.

 

[Ethan N]

More or less...

If you carry concealed, nobody will know you're carrying. So no problem, unless you have to use your weapon.

In which case, the old adage may/may not apply to you:

"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Your call.

Gotcha. Well in this case, assuming this bill passes, carrying concealed in the parks will still be legal, just not open carry. So thankfully that won’t be an issue.

To be on the safe side, I’m basically going to act as if this bill outright bans open carry at all municipal parks, not just trust-managed ones, and I’ll always conceal at municipal parks. I’ve had my fill of pushing the legal boundaries of open carry.

 

[golddigger14s]

On the original point, I'm not opposed to public trust parks banning open carry. CC IMO is more "polite" and so long as they're not trying to ban all carry, I think it's worth the compromise to get Constitutional Carry. JMO, YMMV!

That's just the problem. Every time we "compromise" we lose another bit of our rights.

 

[GunSlingingPlatypus]

I'm not a big fan of restricting open carry. I think carry is carry and how you choose to carry is up to you. However, I'm not terribly upset about the new bill restricting open carry but allowing concealed carry at the zoos. I mean, Hooters has a sticker disallowing open carry but encourages concealed carry.