Yet another pro v. con thread on open carry

[TxKimberMan]

My intent is not to hijack this thread, but to ask an honest question regarding this discussion of open carry legislation.

I've pondered all that has been said, and I guess that I'm missing something. I understand there is a desire by some to open carry, but I just don't see the appeal. IMHO, I view it as a strategic and tactical disadvantage, and if open carry in Texas was legal today, I would still carry concealed. I think it is more of a visual political statement, rather than a practical necessity.

Could someone please explain what makes open carry so attractive to them?

I believe if the majority of pistol -packin' people in Texas (and the TSRA) shared the passion of the OP on this subject, then I'm sure it would be on TSRA's agenda. However, I don't feel that enough folks "feel the love" for the legislation as much as the OP, and I agree with the tactic of budgeting our political capital to address the issues which DO matter to the majority.

[Conagher]

Could someone please explain what makes open carry so attractive to them?

Hello TxKimberMan,

This was addressed in a previous post, but for your convenience, please see cut & paste below.

Thanks and Have a Nice Day!


Even if it passed I would still carry concealed:

I think as a general rule this will be true for the vast majority of CHL’s, including me at times. However, I also believe that most CHL’s will practice OC to some extent, even though they may not visualize that now. Let’s take a few examples. To my knowledge, all of the below are currently illegal w/o OC.

• Removing your jacket/vest which was providing your concealment before you get into your car during our hot Texas summers (assuming not on your property).
• Keeping the handgun exposed on your hip while driving your vehicle.
• Exiting the vehicle prior to putting on your jacket to conceal your handgun (assuming not on your property).
• Showing your buddy the new 1911 you just purchased at his backyard BBQ.
• Removing your handgun from bodily concealment to store in a lock box in your vehicle prior to entering your child’s school.
• Laying your trusty 45 LC in the truck seat next to you to dispense of hogs, coyotes, mexican buzzards, snakes, etc. as you go check on your neighbour’s heifer that is suppose to calve while he is out of town for the weekend (OK, may this one is just me).
• And I’m sure others can think of many, many more.

[chabouk]

Could someone please explain what makes open carry so attractive to them?

I don't see the attraction of carrying Glocks or derringers, but I don't think they should be illegal.

Your personal mode of carry should be your personal choice. That's all the reason needed to legalize OC.

[TxKimberMan]

I never said it should be illegal. I said I didn't see the appeal.

But since it IS ILLEGAL, and in order to change that requires political capital be spent, I appear to not be the only person who feels other issues are more important. I'm not opposed to open carry, just don't see the point. All the reasons listed by the OP in his reply seemed a little lame to me.

Edit: I'm 100% with you on Glocks and derringers though...no appeal either

[casingpoint]

The appeal of OC is twofold. Deterrence, and unencumbered readiness. Both are vulnerable to the element of surprise inherent in concealed carry. Hope this clarifies things....

[chabouk]

All the reasons listed by the OP in his reply seemed a little lame to me.

You are the OP. "OP" = "Original Poster", the person who starts a thread.

What is lame about Conagher's list? Everything he points out is valid: there are many things that we do, or should be able to do, that are currently illegal and shouldn't be. I frequently OC while working around my own property, and that's legal. There's no reason to keep a cover garment on while working outside in the heat, but If I'm mowing and take a step across the property boundary onto my neighbor's yard without a cover, I'm breaking the law. Same for working at my mother's house, or having a cookout at a friend's house. There are times when there's just no good argument for staying concealed, and that's the attraction of legalizing OC.

Back in the Fall election season, some folks had an "open carry cookout", with Debra Medina. Every single one of them who openly carried, except for the property owner, was breaking the law. It was deliberate civil disobedience, but the police didn't care to enforce it. Oh, and speaking of Debra Medina: remember the mild uproar about "She broke the law!!!!" by showing a reporter her pistol?

For me, it's not that OC is attractive, as such. It's that the law requiring concealment is so unattractive and silly that I can find no valid reason to retain it.

[chabouk]

Oh, and I'd like to repeat my thoughts about the most common reason people say they would continue to conceal: that they don't want to lose the "element of surprise".

I'm sorry, but that's just not logical. There's no such thing as a defensive element of surprise: if you need to deploy your concealed handgun, you are the one who has been surprised and lost the initiative.

The next most common argument is that "They'll just take your gun away and use it on you." Millions of police man-hours every year say different. Yes, sometimes police have their guns taken away, but only when they're already in a physical tussle with someone whose number one goal is to get away. But it just doesn't happen that uniformed officers, either police or security, are attacked just to get their gun.

[TxKimberMan]

You are the OP. "OP" = "Original Poster", the person who starts a thread.

No, I am not the OP. This post was relocated by someone (Charles?) from another thread.

"They'll just take your gun away and use it on you." Millions of police man-hours every year say different.

I was mainly framing this discussion around "John or Suzy Q. Citizen" open carrying, not a LEO...I think that is a little different situation, and I agree with you in that regard.

some folks had an "open carry cookout"

This is an example of what I meant by a lame reason...and also what I meant by it being "a visual political statement rather than a practical necessity.

The appeal of OC is twofold. Deterrence, and unencumbered readiness.

Now these two reasons are NOT lame, but "deterrence" can also be a double edged sword by labeling you a TARGET.

Thank you all for your input. I really DO NOT OPPOSE open carry, I hope it becomes a legal option for all those who wish to carry that way. I just wanted to know what reasons this is so desired by some, and have not read anything yet to change my personal view.

[The Annoyed Man]

My intent is not to hijack this thread...

You can't hijack your own thread!

To your question... you're going to get as many answers as there are opinions about OC in the first place, and each one is worth exactly what it cost you to read it. That said, I am mildly in support of OC for a couple of reasons.

One reason is that I don't think the founders cared one way or the other whether weapons were carried openly, so long as the person in question behaved responsibly with them. In fact a couple of signatories to the Declaration of Independence were known to be open carriers. I happen to be in complete agreement with the founders, who thought we should have unrestricted access to all of our natural rights, as enshrined in the Constitution and the other foundational documents. Period. Whether or not we choose to actually exercise said rights, and to the least or fullest extent to which we choose to exercise them. That doesn't mean that I will likely open carry in most situations, but it does mean that I don't want you to go to prison for choosing to open carry yourself.

The second reason is that, for me anyway, OC is merely a matter of convenience. If it ever passes, I will likely still choose to carry concealed 99% of the time. Discretion is the better part of valor, and whatever else OC is, it ain't discreet. However, I would like to know that I can take my jacket off on a hot day, or sit in my car with my jacket off, or accidentally have the wind blow my shirt tail up, or whatever, and not get arrested for exposing my gun.

[C-dub]

I don't think anyone mentioned comfort. For those that like to wear a cover garment they could OC and not have to if they wanted to OC. If we ever get to that point or I go somewhere OC is okay and I do comfort would probably be the main reason.

[Liberty]

I used to not care much about the OC issue, but it does seem that they arresting CHLers if they inadvertently expose their weapons.. Even though the law clearly states. unintention exposure is not a criminal offense. The victim gets to spend time, in jail spend all kinds of money on lawyers, and nothing happens to the folks who make the bogus charges. It would seem as though the TSRA and all CHLers would want some kind of protection. The only protection we have is to make OC legal.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Oh, and I'd like to repeat my thoughts about the most common reason people say they would continue to conceal: that they don't want to lose the "element of surprise".

I'm sorry, but that's just not logical. There's no such thing as a defensive element of surprise: if you need to deploy your concealed handgun, you are the one who has been surprised and lost the initiative.

The element of surprise most certainly does exist from a defensive perspective. Every respected tactical school and trainer will agree. Predators expect compliant victims and act accordingly. If the victim uses this expectation to their advantage, it can work in their favor and their attacker may well provide the opportunity to draw and engage. If you have your gun on your hip, this element of surprise is lost.

Chas.

[MoJo]

OC requires retention holsters whereas concealed carry doesn't. Some retention holsters (level 2 and 3 the best ones) take as least as long to disengage the retention devices than to toss the cover garment aside and draw. A level 1 retention holster, one that is designed to simply keep your gun from falling out of the holster,can easily be overcome by a potential grabber.

[casingpoint]

There's no such thing as a defensive element of surprise

Oh no? I'll wager these two punks were very surprised when this former Marine "pulled out his handgun and shot both in the head."
http://therealgunguys.blogspot.com/2007 ... lf-in.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[stevie_d_64]

My intent is not to hijack this thread...

You can't hijack your own thread!

I've tried and failed miserably...