The Open Carry Argument - Page 3
Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 472
Like Tree255Likes

The Open Carry Argument

This is a discussion on The Open Carry Argument within the Open Carry Discussion forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by utimmer43 I don't think you have to worry about that. This is a pretty well established, well ...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    I don't think you have to worry about that. This is a pretty well established, well maintained site.
    Glad to hear it. There was another carry related site not too long ago, and it vanished. And I've seen many sites come and go over the years.

    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    BTW, Welcome to it!
    Thanks! Yes, I'm up to a whopping post count of three! :)

  2. #22
    tattedupboy's Avatar
    tattedupboy is offline Thank God I'm alive!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    I've updated the It Will Get Stolen paragraph (in the original post) to add an argument against the notion that police officers are targeted for their firearms. The theory being that if police officers are targeted by criminals looking for a gun to steal, we will be as well. Like the other anti-open carry arguments, it sounds good at first blush, but doesn’t hold any weight in real life.
    Actually, I'm living proof that the argument does hold some weight. For those of you who haven't read it, read this thread:

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gener...4-im-back.html

    Not trying to scare people into not open carrying. All I'm saying is that, contrary to what you say, open carriers do get their weapons taken from them. I followed all the rules of situational awareness that have been drilled into my head since I was young, and it still happened to me. While carrying openly is certainly a deterrent, nobody shoould ever develop a false sense of security that carrying openly will assure that nothing bad will happen to them.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Actually, I'm living proof that the argument does hold some weight. For those of you who haven't read it, read this thread:

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/gener...4-im-back.html

    Not trying to scare people into not open carrying. All I'm saying is that, contrary to what you say, open carriers do get their weapons taken from them. I followed all the rules of situational awareness that have been drilled into my head since I was young, and it still happened to me. While carrying openly is certainly a deterrent, nobody shoould ever develop a false sense of security that carrying openly will assure that nothing bad will happen to them.
    Can you link the news story?

  4. #24
    tattedupboy's Avatar
    tattedupboy is offline Thank God I'm alive!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    Can you link the news story?

    I read the newspaper the entire time I was in the hospital, and the story never appeared.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    I read the newspaper the entire time I was in the hospital, and the story never appeared.

    This is somewhat confusing, because even in a big city like Seattle, if a guy gets shot in the back and robbed, it makes the news for days.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    62

    Thumbs down OC Argument

    I read this when it was first posted and have given it a lot of thought.

    I have to disagree with the over all post.

    If I have to draw my weapon then I will win or loose but the loss will be because I was not fast enough to defend myself or my family!~

    Solemn is primarily defined as religious or marked by a serious ceremony or awe-inspiring. I look upon carrying either OC or CC as an everyday occurrence. Having to use my weapon would be because of necessity therefore a required use.

    I refuse to play the blame game that because I used my weapon I therefore accept or assume some type of guilt. The guilt I will accept is the guilt of failure to act is such a fashion as to force the BG to loose.

    I believe that the primary original OP has been high-jacked and I am only addressing it.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliej47 View Post
    I read this when it was first posted and have given it a lot of thought.

    I have to disagree with the over all post.

    If I have to draw my weapon then I will win or loose but the loss will be because I was not fast enough to defend myself or my family!~

    Solemn is primarily defined as religious or marked by a serious ceremony or awe-inspiring. I look upon carrying either OC or CC as an everyday occurrence. Having to use my weapon would be because of necessity therefore a required use.

    I refuse to play the blame game that because I used my weapon I therefore accept or assume some type of guilt. The guilt I will accept is the guilt of failure to act is such a fashion as to force the BG to loose.

    I believe that the primary original OP has been high-jacked and I am only addressing it.
    I don’t think you grasped what I was saying. It has nothing to do with blame or guilt. Talk to anyone who has had to draw a weapon in self defense, every one of them will tell you they’d prefer to have not been in the situation in the first place. Yes, they are all glad they prevailed, but they would all rather not have been there if it were possible. I know there are a lot of internet tough-guys who will tell you they’d really like to bust a cap in some low-life scumbag that tries to rob them, however, in real life it just doesn’t work out that way.

    If you are forced into a self defense situation, you will lose. The degree of loss is the only thing that’s negotiable. Loss can be a changed view of your own vulnerability, the loss can be financial, or the loss can even be something much worse. No defense situation is ordered or predictable. You or the loved ones you are trying to protect can be injured or killed. The weapon only evens the playing field, it doesn’t tip the scale toward you.

    Remember, the essay is about why I prefer open carry. As I stated, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death (or maiming). The essay is about me, about my values, and my decision process. We shoot to stop the threat, and we don’t point our weapon at anything we don’t want to destroy. Since I cannot rebuild a human body, I’d prefer not to destroy one. I am willing to defend myself and my loved ones, and in certain scenarios, another innocent, from the predators. Firearms are, to me anyway, a last resort option.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliej47 View Post
    If I have to draw my weapon then I will win or loose but the loss will be because I was not fast enough to defend myself or my family!~
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    If you are forced into a self defense situation, you will lose. The degree of loss is the only thing that’s negotiable.
    Charlie, I'd recommend reading In the Gravest Extreme if you don't get this point. It's a great read for many other reasons as well.

    If you are forced to kill someone, you will likely have emotional scars yourself, unless you're a sociopath. You also could be arrested and dragged through some expensive legal hassles.

    Edit to add: I'd like to cite a passage from Ayoob's book:

    "Violent death by gunfire is a gruesome, traumatizing thing to watch, especially if it is committed by a parent before the eyes of a child close enough to the unfolding situation to realize, now, or later, if the act may not have been entirely justified.Too many American men think that an act of violence will create or reinforce the respect of the ones they love. This belief is a by-product of that part of the American spirit that lives vicariously through the entertainment media which glorify physical violence. Perhaps too often, this belief is well founded, but an act of extreme violence in front of your loved ones can still be an extreme emotional shock that can alter forever, and in a most unpleasant way, the light in which they look at you."

    I also vaguely recall anecdotes from the book in which good men who've defended their families end up in divorce as a result.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns


    On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

    The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states.

    In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.

    Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.

    On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

    Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that

    "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

    Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that

    "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."

    Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana , Virginia (see additional settlement here <http://hamptonroads.com/node/491877> ), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

    Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here <http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856> .

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default

    I personaly have not yet, but would have to say that people bring up police open carry. Now with that said how does one know they are police just becauce they have a badge it could be a security badge. I know michigan is a open carry but some people like to say now that you have a ccw/cpl you have to do that and do not have the right to open carry any longer.

Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •