Here are some common anti-Open Carry statements:
Even if there was open carry, I'd still carry concealed.
Don't antis say this about firearms in general? Don't many gun owners and antis say this about concealed carry? "Even though it is legal to own/carry a firearm, I still don't see the need. I never would."
This is not a substantive argument.
The law would provide you the freedom to choose, not compel you to act against your will. If you hate open carry, then an open carry law would leave you free to choose NOT to exercise that freedom. Concealed carry laws allow us to choose whether or not to carry a firearm concealed. If you don't want to, then don't. You're free not to. I often choose not to exercise all of my rights at every given moment.
There is a tactical disadvantage.
This is pragmatism, not philosophical. It might be an argument for why one should choose not to open carry, but it is not a positive argument for open carry laws. Especially considering that there are tactical disadvantages for every situation: concealed carry takes longer to draw, can get snagged in apparel, can compromise the size, accuracy, and capacity of the firearm you choose, etc. These are valid points for firearm owners to consider when choosing how best to protect themselves. They hold no merit when discussing the validity or necessity of laws.
When would you even use open carry when you can conceal it?
Again, this sounds like the antis arguments against concealed carry. It also sounds like the environmentalists who presume I need to justify the utilization of a vehicle with poor fuel economy before purchase.
All that anybody needs to know is that somebody else might have reasons to open carry. You may have none, but somebody may have one. The reasons are plentiful and have been listed numerous times. Regardless, you can't stand in judgment of somebody else's priorities. If it's important to them, then let them be. Let's DEFAULT to freedom. Let's DEFAULT to fewer governmental restrictions on our daily lives.
- Getting in and out of cars
- Being on private property in public view
- Being on private property in private view
- Sitting in a restaurant at a table and removing your cover garment
- Because I want to and feel that I should have the freedom to
- Hot summer days
- Because I feel safer with pairs of Desert Eagles or Smith and Wesson .500 Magnums on each hip, and they're a bear to conceal
- Because I think the Constitution grants me the right to
This will cause more businesses to ban all firearms.
Again, pragmatism. How many of you would be for a law that bans everything larger than a .32 but allows you to carry anywhere in the country (even courthouses, private businesses, etc.), as long as you turn in your other guns? (This is a reductio ad absurdum.) Essentially: are you willing to give up more of your rights and freedoms to win a pragmatic battle?
There are many ways to answer this pragmatically:
- Make them post two different signs, one that addresses open carry and one that addresses concealed carry
- Make them give verbal notice to open carry
- Remove the ability to post signs
- Boycott the places that do this and let the free market decide
Regardless, we need to stop letting pragmatism compromise our fundamental ideology. If we do, we could easily start down the slippery slope of allowing our rights to be eroded completely. What's wrong with ammo stamping? Ammo registration? Gun registration? Capacity limits? Caliber limits? Gun quotas? etc., etc., etc.? What if they give us a token freedom for each real freedom they remove? Would it pacify us?
I understand that not everybody feels compelled to jump in the fight and crusade for open carry rights, but my goodness, nobody on this forum should be campaigning AGAINST them!!! (Or making the open carry people JUSTIFY their positions!!!)
Again, I think we should default to freedom and put the burden of proof in the debate on the people who want to restrict those freedoms.
My original post was in another thread, and it was moved here under a new title.
My reasoning as well.