Open Carry!

[aestus]

I was discussing open carry with someone at a police supply store in Lawton today and question came up that I thought was interesting....

Here is a hypothetical scenerio.... Open Carry is passed and it is legal to show your firearm in public... but you are carrying fully concealed. Now suppose your confronted in a Walmart parking lot [or some place else] by a punk or even a couple of punks that is giving you mouth.. threatening to kick you A$$. If you sweep back your shirt or vest and simply show that you are wearing a weapon... not verbally pointing it out or making any kind of threat, not even touching the weapon.. just showing your weapon as if you were legally open carrying.... would that be considered brandishing a weapon?

I said I thought that would be considered brandishing.. because it could be interpreted that you only showed it for the purpose of intimidation.. others disagree.... what do you think?

It would really depend on the responding cop and whether or not the other punks really were punks/thugs. Technically, it would be brandishing but it can go either way. It's a dumb thing to do in most situations, because by "brandishing" you are now threatening their lives and they arguably they now have the right to use lethal force against you. It doesn't really matter that they were mouthing off to you. The only time I would do such a thing is if you are near 100% sure their motive and intent is to do physical and life threatening harm to you, but they have not yet performed any actions physically to you. Instead they are stalking you and closing the distance between you and them, ect. If the situation is dire and the chance of you avoiding the situation is zero and actually drawing your weapon would still lead to you or others being physically harmed in the gunfight, then I would do a poker play and brandish...

 

[ArGyLe64]

It would really depend on the responding cop and whether or not the other punks really were punks/thugs. Technically, it would be brandishing but it can go either way. It's a dumb thing to do in most situations, because by "brandishing" you are now threatening their lives and they arguably they now have the right to use lethal force against you. It doesn't really matter that they were mouthing off to you. The only time I would do such a thing is if you are near 100% sure their motive and intent is to do physical and life threatening harm to you, but they have not yet performed any actions physically to you. Instead they are stalking you and closing the distance between you and them, ect. If the situation is dire and the chance of you avoiding the situation is zero and actually drawing your weapon would still lead to you or others being physically harmed in the gunfight, then I would do a poker play and brandish...

I could've sworn brandishing was only when you removed the weapon from your holster not simply letting it be seen. At least that's what I learned at an OK2A meeting.

 

[David2012]

As we were previously informed in a earlier post... here is a confirmation article from the Oklahoman! You can all stop holding your breath in anticipation wondering if she will sign the bill or not..

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin says she'll sign open carry gun measure


Gov. Mary Fallin told delegates Saturday at the Oklahoma Republican State Convention she will sign into law the bill that will allow those with concealed handgun permits to openly carry their weapons. The measure would take effect Nov. 1.


http://newsok.com/oklahoma-gov.-mary-fallin-says-shell-sign-open-carry-gun-measure/article/3675105

 

[tacmedic]

This....is just ridiculous thinking!

And what exactly do you base that on? Please share with us your history in the profession of arms.

 

[av8r115]

And what exactly do you base that on? Please share with us your history in the profession of arms.

It's an open forum, dude. Don't get your underwear in a twist. If you want people to buy your point of view, come up with a better argument than "I"m smarter than you."

 

[av8r115]

Open carry is stupid IMHO. Not requiring some type of retention holster and weapon retention training is irresponsible.

IMO retention devices are a bad idea, but if you want one then knock yourself out. I will NEVER wear a holster that in any way impedes drawing my G21 (there are times when I can't wear a holster, so I carry a fast-draw fanny pack). I got my CCL because some punk stuck his 9mm in my face because I wouldn't let him beat up his girlfriend. If I'd had my gun split seconds would have counted and I wouldn't want to be fussing with a thumb-break or some other retention device. When you're in a fight, fine motor skills go out the window. Even highly trained LEO's miss more often than they hit when in a gunfight. In a SD situation I don't want a distraction.

Handgun training of any sort is a great idea - requiring it crosses the line. If a person can't figure out from the SDA training that they need to hang onto their gun, forcing them to take another class isn't going to help.

There's going to be a rash of people who OC because it's cool, but the fad will pass and then it'll be back to business as usual for those of us who carry for SD. For me, I don't like wearing a jacket or sport coat all the time or worrying about the barrel of the G21 showing beneath the edge of my jacket. After Nov 1, I can take my coat off when I get in the car and don't have to put it on before I get out. Being able to take off my jacket at the restaurant will be great.

IDK if you're calling the right to OC stupid or the act of carrying OC stupid, but either way I think you're mistaken, and are working yourself up over something that will turn out to be a non-event to law-abiding citizens. On the other hand, criminals will be concerned because removing the concealed requirement will encourage more people to carry, rasing the risk level of engaging in criminal activity. What's wrong with that?

 

[TuAlum0982]

I was discussing open carry with someone at a police supply store in Lawton today and question came up that I thought was interesting....

Here is a hypothetical scenerio.... Open Carry is passed and it is legal to show your firearm in public... but you are carrying fully concealed. Now suppose your confronted in a Walmart parking lot [or some place else] by a punk or even a couple of punks that is giving you mouth.. threatening to kick you A$$. If you sweep back your shirt or vest and simply show that you are wearing a weapon... not verbally pointing it out or making any kind of threat, not even touching the weapon.. just showing your weapon as if you were legally open carrying.... would that be considered brandishing a weapon?

I said I thought that would be considered brandishing.. because it could be interpreted that you only showed it for the purpose of intimidation.. others disagree.... what do you think?

the definition of brandishing a weapon is to "wave or shake, flourish." IMO this would not constitute brandishing a weapon as per the definition. Maybe the OK law book reads differently though.

 

[wiley_coyote]

So I can legally pull my weapon and kill the BG when I feel my life is in danger but I can't legally brandish my weapon to the BG for intimidation purposes in order to alleviate the situation? Do I have it right?

 

[av8r115]

I was discussing open carry with someone at a police supply store in Lawton today and question came up that I thought was interesting....

Here is a hypothetical scenerio.... Open Carry is passed and it is legal to show your firearm in public... but you are carrying fully concealed. Now suppose your confronted in a Walmart parking lot [or some place else] by a punk or even a couple of punks that is giving you mouth.. threatening to kick you A$$. If you sweep back your shirt or vest and simply show that you are wearing a weapon... not verbally pointing it out or making any kind of threat, not even touching the weapon.. just showing your weapon as if you were legally open carrying.... would that be considered brandishing a weapon?

I said I thought that would be considered brandishing.. because it could be interpreted that you only showed it for the purpose of intimidation.. others disagree.... what do you think?

I think this is called flashing. Odd's are that if you've already told the punks to buzz off and they're not getting the hint, you need to get ready to draw your gun. If doing so reveals the gun and they decide to leave, that's a bonus. They are not going to run to the nearest LEO and report that you were flashing or brandishing a weapon because the LEO's next question will be why would you do that. IMO there's no reason to open your jacket JUST to reveal the gun. Don't move your hand toward that gun unless you are fully prepared to draw and fire.

 

[SMS]

So I can legally pull my weapon and kill the BG when I feel my life is in danger but I can't legally brandish my weapon to the BG for intimidation purposes in order to alleviate the situation? Do I have it right?

Yes....because your lawfully carried firearm is not for intimidating people. It is not a talisman or a charm. It is a tool intended and designed to deliver deadly force when, and only when, deadly force is authorized/required. Showing it, brandishing it, flaunting it or whatever you want to call it prior to deadly force being necessary and/or justified is just plain dumb.

If someone can't handle running into a couple of loud mouths in a walmart parking lot without flashing a pistol, they should probably just stay home. There are plenty of other options that don't require injecting deadly force into that "scenario"....