texasag93 wrote:LEGAL in 44 states and openly accepted are two different things.
I lived in Ohio for a time... open carry is legal under their state constitution.
Try it and you will end up taking a riding to the local jail with inciting a disturbance or something else the policeman can think up.
I am truely divided with open carry. I do realize that it should be completely normal and legal.
I grew up here and when riding around, you would see rifles in gun racks in trucks parked at businesses with their windows down. Try that now and you will be dealing with the police, either with them telling you not to do it or filling out a stolen property report.
The problem is that so many people are passively OK with RKBA, but they do not want it in their face. They do not want to see it. They do not want to think about it. If you push them, they are more likely to go against it than to accept it.
Brainwashing from the press, maybe. It is still a path that we may not want to push people down.
Just my 2 cents.
texasag
I too am divided on open carry. Here are some of my talking points
The petition requests that ANYONE who can legally buy a gun should be able to openly carry. This basically removes any need for a CHL, AND it does not require that people understand the laws surrounding carrying a firearm. I imagine that many people are like me, in that one of the top things they took away from their CHL classes was the importance of understanding the laws. Going into the CHL I had ZERO understanding of handgun laws. At least from a CHL perspective, you are required to understand the responsibility of carrying a firearm, as you are actually tested on it. The open carry petition says that you aren't required to understand a single law regarding handguns before being able to carry. We don't let people who become a legal age to immediately start driving a vehicle. We require that they actually go take a test to demonstrate their proficiency of driving, and their capability to understand the law. However, I don't see people arguing against getting a driver's license, because we should have a basic right to able to travel freely within the US, and therefore anyone should be able to drive a vehicle without getting a license.
The proponents for open carry often use the argument that openly displaying a firearm will alert criminals not to mess with you. I would argue that openly carry actually gives the criminals the advantage in that they know who to take out first. You are openly advertising that you are the top priority if someone is to attack you. These open carry proponents would likely come back with, "Well, I won't get attacked because I'm carrying a gun and the criminal knows it"..... Hmm, and if you believe that, then you believe the "Gun free zone" signs must also stop criminals from carrying guns into those areas as well :) We know that if an individual is 21ft or closer, they can attack you without you being able to draw your weapon. If the attacker see's you have a gun, they already have an advantage because they know they can get closer to 21 feet before pulling the knife and asking for your money. In this scenario, you are the one caught off guard. In a concealed scenario, they do not know this and may actually pull the knife 40 or 50 feet away, and you would still have time to pull your firearm before they got closer to you. So, in this instance they are the one caught off guard.
"Out of sight, out of mind". Right now, one benefit of concealed carry is that most people don't know who is carrying a gun and who isn't. The end result is businesses aren't reminded that people are carrying gun, and therefore don't explicitly prohibit them. With open carry, businesses will be very aware of the constant presence of guns, and thus I'm quite sure that we will see a HUGE increase in the number of establishments posting "no gun" signs. We will then all be complaining about how everyplace prohibits carrying your gun, which defeats the purpose of open carry.
Open carry doesn't impose any restrictions on where you can carry, other than "except for those places prohibited by law". I certainly don't want to see people in bars, getting drunk, carrying a gun. It is legal to be in a bar, so therefore the Open Carry petition supports you carrying into those establishments.
The open carry petitions says that you "have to wear a jacket to properly conceal" your handgun. Are you kidding me? I have have read pages of threads on this very forum where individuals have CLEARLY shown how easy it is to conceal a handgun. Matter of fact, I've read accounts where CHL holders, who know what to look for, still have very hard times deciding if someone else is carrying or not. If we, as a group, are educated to know what to look for, have a difficult time deciding if someone else is carrying, would we expect the general public to be able to detect it any better? Using this argument, none of the CHL holders would be carrying a gun 10 months out of the year when they can't wear a jacket. I personally think this argument is rediculous.
There are no additional penalties for individuals who open carry and commit an offense. In comparison, CHL holders are held to a higher bar than the normal public. If a non CHL holder goes to a bar and has some drinks, drive home, and stays under the legal intoxication limit, you are free to drive home with probably a warning. If you are a CHL holder, and you are caught drinking any alcohol and found to be intoxicated, regardless if it is below the legal limit, you are awarded a Class A Misdemeanor. The law enforcement agencies know that CHL holders walk a finer line, have their background meticulously checked, and in general are "safer" individuals to be around. I have read numerous posts on this very forum where individuals got pulled over and were given slack because they where CHL holders. Personally, I like having this additional bar placed on CHL holders, because in my mind it creates an artificial "trustworthy" designation for us in the eyes of the law.
Right now it is perfectly legal to carry shotguns, rifles openly in Texas. The law says I should be able to go to my neighborhood pack toting my shotgun or scoped rifle. Most of the advice I've read on here however will tell you that it's a bad idea to do that. Why would it be any different if I was carrying a handgun?
My basic question is what does Open Carry give me that Concealed Carry does not that REALISTICALLY benefits me in a dangerous situation?
My own opinion is that the petition is poorly written, and uses some very weak arguments for Open Carry. I think the author should have found some stronger arguments for pro-carry. I firmly believe this movement will get better traction if it was advocating pro-carry for CHL holders. Instead it makes a blanket petition for anyone, and quite frankly that is too radical for the government to consider right now. I think the author chose to take the high risk, high reward, swing for the homerun approach, rather than the safer, swing for a base hit approach in this petition. In my opinion, open carry has a better chance by opening it up to license holders first, and then eventually to the general public, rather than try and open it up to the mass public at first.
I am a firm believer in an individuals right to own and carry firearms, but personally I don't see how my ability to openly advertise that I am carrying a firearm REALISTICALLY provides me any additional benefits over concealed carry. Most of the arguments I have read in favor of Open Carry focus more on it being an infringement on my rights as an individual, or it being a form of gun control. I've see little PRACTICAL information on how it will make me safer than concealed carry. In respect, I actually think Open Carry will ultimately create a more restrictive environment in which I can carry. Businesses will start getting complaints from customers that "they allow gun toting individuals", and they will threaten to cease doing business with them. Companies follow the money, and thus will start restricting gun toting individuals from their places of establishment.
