[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

What ends up happening if society ends up feeling challenged enough such that they start to vote to reduce gun rights in general and openly carrying in particular? Say in California for instance...

I think California's ban on open carry will be a positive for gun rights in the long term. Again, since no one was doing it, was it really a right they had? What's the point of having a right if it can't be exercised. Now that the legislature in Cali has made the over-reaching move to ban open carry entirely, it can now go to the courts, and there is much more ammo to get the prohibitive laws overturned. In the long run, them banning unloaded open carry is the best thing for gun rights in Cali.

And to further counter your argument. California is one state. Open carry has resulted in positive laws being passed in far more states. Arizona and Wyoming now have Constitutional Carry. Several other states are working actively to get Constitutional Carry. Oklahoma just legalized open carry. Open carry has led to a push for stand your ground laws.

In states with good legislatures (Like Maine has) Open carry shines a light on the problems gun owners face, and forces the legislature to act to fix those problems. The open carry movement was directly responsible for two laws in Maine that now allow for state park carry and employee protection for a firearm locked in a personal vehicle on company property.

[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by wprebeck

Decriminalization of something does not mean it is appropriate. Where in the world would you get that idea? Further, I would imagine a reasonable amount of legislators in your state voted against open carry, and don't approve of it.

And, you show extreme ignorance in saying you could design a duty belt that could be, even remotely, concealed. I carry a G22 with X200, two spare mags, a 21" ASP, two pairs of cuffs, a Surefire 6PX, a radio with shoulder mike, and a Mk4 OC. Other setups vary, but you can add a Taser to that for most street officers. The thing weighs over 20 lbs. And you think you can conceal it. Yeah.

Regarding OC as a deterrent - ever think the locations and times of day play a part in not being attacked. Likely moreso than carrying a gun. You're only fooling yourself if you think its a deterrent to someone who wants it. But, what do I know? Just 12 years of dealing with real criminals, instead of reading about them in he news, like an expert such as yourself does.

I said nothing about concealing the belt or any of it's other contents. I said I could design a duty belt that concealed the firearm. The argument is not the duty belt. The argument is that a concealed firearm is better than an open one.

[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by Stevekozak

Has it occured to you that in your comparison of officers that have been killed in uniform to OCers, that it might not be the gun that is the key factor, but rather the uniform? I can't remember reading any news stories that contained information that a criminal decided to go out and attack an OCer because he was OCing. I have read news stories that contained information that a criminal decided to go out and kill a cop that day. The gun was not a deterrant because it was not their focus, the cop was.

I think this is a very valid paragraph. I agree. I have not seen criminals target open carriers for the gun with any sort of frequency. When a cop is killed. He's not killed so the killer can steal the gun. He's killed because the killer wants to kill a cop, or thinks he is forced to kill a cop to make an escape. Think about it. If you were a criminal, and you wanted a gun, would taking one from a cop be your choice? or would burglary of a home be safer?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by RussP

Please quantify with a number how many is "Many".

Good, and this is more than a dozen out of how many stores you walk into on all your walks through Portland, Biddeford, and the other towns you stroll?

How many of that total have not commented on your weapon, I mean, approximately? The population of Portland is around 66,000, correct? Being that it is the business, financial and retail center of Maine, there must be hundreds of businesses there.

This is to put things into perspective for everyone.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by RussP

Are there any places and/or any times you would not open carry?

So you would be willing to open carry everywhere else in the State of Maine at any time of day or night?

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by boyscout399

See, I feel that the law defines "when and where appropriate." When legislatures purposefully pass things like state pre-emption laws, The state is making a statement that "when and where appropriate" means throughout our state, and whenever you feel the need. Maine's pre-emption law was specifically passed to rein in Portland when they arrested a man for carrying openly after dark. By passing that law, the state said that carrying openly in Portland is "appropriate"

No. You entirely misunderstand the purpose of the law and the difference between "appropriate" and "legal".

There's no law against farting in tune to "Amazing Grace" while wearing spandex, but that doesn't make it appropriate behavior in church...or anywhere else, come to think of it.




ETA: Drat should have read ahead. Okay, caught up now.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by boyscout399

Forgive me if I take the evidence of properly conducted Department of Justice studies and published books over your claimed knowledge on the subject. What I don't understand is why the people in a gun forum are so against the exercise of gun rights. Let's set aside the possibility that it could be not tactically smart. What do you say about the fact that it's a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution? Why do you fight me so hard?

Way to analyze the issues! Can't help but thinking that part plays some role in when people are suggesting open carry may be inappropriate...

If you set aside the possibility of landing badly, there's no reason not to jump off a cliff either.



Randy

[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by RussP

So you would be willing to open carry everywhere else in the State of Maine at any time of day or night?

Yes, and I do when my business takes me there. I'm not traveling multiple hours just to go for a walk though... I also go for walks in many other coastal towns and cities in Maine. I prefer walking in cities because in the country there is a huge mosquito problem. Plus I like the architecture.

[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by steveksux

Way to analyze the issues!

If you set aside the possibility of landing badly, there's no reason not to jump off a cliff either.



Randy

you're taking a possibility and comparing it to an absolute. Landing badly is an absolute result of jumping off a cliff (depending on the height of the cliff) The tactical advantages of open versus concealed carry are debatable. For instance, the advantage of deterrence. That is a tactical advantage of open carry. Surprise is a tactical advantage of concealed carry. Quicker access is a tactical advantage of open carry. Secrecy is a tactical advantage of concealed carry. Retention could be argued either way because most open carry holsters offer more retention capabilities, but it could be argued that the fact that it's hidden is a retention mechanism on it's own.

[Kevin108]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

I am going to suggest perhaps a polo shirt in an agreed upon universal color with an embroidered carry badge and maybe some sort of contrasting color vertical stripe with the wording "legal carrier" or similar...

Sillyville's population just doubled! :D

[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

No. You entirely misunderstand the purpose of the law and the difference between "appropriate" and "legal".

There's no law against farting in tune to "Amazing Grace" while wearing spandex, but that doesn't make it appropriate behavior in church...or anywhere else, come to think of it.




ETA: Drat should have read ahead. Okay, caught up now.

I'll give you that. But I'll pose you another question. Just because something is inappropriate, does that warrant police detainment? Would you say someone farting Amazing Grace on a street corner should have the police show up to confiscate the person's buttocks and demand their ID? Or should the police just drive by and tell the person that they think they're being stupid?

A detainment is not justified just because someone might consider something "inappropriate." Even if a MAJORITY of people think something is "inappropriate." A fine example would be the Westboro Baptist Church. What they are doing is HIGHLY inappropriate in my opinion, but you know what, they have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to do it, and the police cannot detain them and demand their ID simply for exercising free speech.

[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by RussP

Good, and this is more than a dozen out of how many stores you walk into on all your walks through Portland, Biddeford, and the other towns you stroll?

How many of that total have not commented on your weapon, I mean, approximately? The population of Portland is around 66,000, correct? Being that it is the business, financial and retail center of Maine, there must be hundreds of businesses there.

This is to put things into perspective for everyone.

I really don't go into many stores. I'm a man of routine. I eat at the same 2 or 3 restaurants, I go to the same gas station and same grocery store. So, I would say that maybe 50% of the businesses I go to have complemented my carry. The other 50% apparently do not care, because they don't ask me to leave. Some of them may feel mildly uncomfortable, I'm not sure. If they asked me to leave, I would leave and not come back...

[racerford]

Originally Posted by noway

............
I agreed that you didn't break the law, you execute a right given to by the gov, but what do you really gain by going thru all of that just to have a OC weapon and how the public and more so, the Police will view it?

........

Rights are not given by the government; they are protected by the government.

Things seen as "rights" that are given by the government are privileges and are easily taken away.

[racerford]

I am appalled at some the statements in this thread.

Here is the language of the 2nd amwndment:

As passed by the Congress:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So what part of this says he shouldn't be OC'ing. What part of "shall not be infringed" allows this since the amendment is about "bearing" or carrying arms?

It is sad to see so many on a gun board arguing against the 2nd amendment.

A right not excercised is a right that is forfeited. Have we not learned this lesson?

Very sad.

[jdavionic]

Interesting video. So based on some of your replies, it appears you were not 'trolling for attention' or desiring an encounter.

IMHO, I don't think you did anything wrong. You certainly rattled off a bunch of precedence cases. Not sure how valid they were, but I would guess you're pretty familiar with it all. I think that helped sway the supervisor.

Let me ask - once you were stopped, was your intent to try & educate the officers on your rights and to have them walk away with a different perspective so that they may change their actions in the future?

[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Let me ask - once you were stopped, was your intent to try & educate the officers on your rights and to have them walk away with a different perspective so that they may change their actions in the future?

Once I was stopped, my main thoughts are to find out if the stop was justified. If it was justified through a suspicion of crime. I'll cooperate and try to remove the suspicion. If it's not justified, my goal becomes ending the encounter as quickly as possible while maintaining the EVERY right I have. With every encounter I learn a little bit more about how to tip their hand into forcing them to let me go. With every encounter, I follow up with the police chief to inform him what his officers on the street are doing. The officer's main goal it seems in all of these encounters, is getting my ID to run it for warrants. Their primary goal is getting that Identification. What I don't understand, is if it's their goal to get an ID, why don't they train their officers to wait to initiate the stop until they have enough to FORCE the ID. If a trained officer watches anyone for 5 minutes they've gotta be able to come up with some law that's been broken...

[Green_Manelishi]

Originally Posted by boyscout399

... I'm comparing the benefits between OC and CC. ... For police it facilitates carrying a larger weapon and having faster access to that weapon should they need it.

LE has, over the years, transitioned from .45 "Colt", to .357 Mag/.38 special, to 9mm. Please show how this demonstrates carrying a larger "weapon"? Let me add that I do not like using the word "weapon" so frequently. It becomes a weapon when used as such, otherwise it's like your box opener and "multi tool".

[RussP]

Originally Posted by racerford

Rights are not given by the government; they are protected by the government...

Really?

[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by Green_Manelishi

LE has, over the years, transitioned from .45 "Colt", to .357 Mag/.38 special, to 9mm. Please show how this demonstrates carrying a larger "weapon"? Let me add that I do not like using the word "weapon" so frequently. It becomes a weapon when used as such, otherwise it's like your box opener and "multi tool".

size of the firearm and caliber of the firearm are not equal. Concealed carry in warm climates may only permit carrying a small, 5 shot .45 for instance, but open carry allows carrying a 17 round g17. The g17 is the bigger gun... Police carry full size duty weapons usually. Most ccw holders carry things like the g26 or snubby revolvers that have far less firepower. Carrying a larger weapon if you wish to conceal involves changing your wardrobe to dress around the gun.

Police went from a six shooter, to a 8 shot 1911, to a 16 shot g22. Basically the police have almost tripled their on body firepower in the last 100 years. I would consider a g22 to be a "larger and more effective firearm" than a revolver.

If they came out with some sort of laser gun that fit in the palm of your hand and could fire 100 beams before reloading, and each of those beams made an adequately sized hole in the badguy. I would consider that a "larger and more effective" firearm as well. And police would most likely transition to that tool. They would also probably continue to carry that tool in the open and would not conceal it.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Green_Manelishi

LE has, over the years, transitioned from .45 "Colt", to .357 Mag/.38 special, to 9mm. Please show how this demonstrates carrying a larger "weapon"?

We're talking about larger as in a full size pistol versus a compact model, G22 versus G23 or G27.

[boyscout399]

Originally Posted by RussP

Really?

Yes. The rights spelled out in the Constitution are granted by God and recognized by the Constitution. It is clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

[racerford]

Originally Posted by RussP

Really?

I am surprised you are not familiar with the Constitution.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by boyscout399

Most ccw holders carry things like the g26 or snubby revolvers that have far less firepower.

What is "most"? Are you saying 51%, 75%? How do you know what "Most ccw holders" carry?

Originally Posted by boyscout399

Carrying a larger weapon if you wish to conceal involves changing your wardrobe to dress around the gun.

And what is wrong with others dressing to effectively conceal carry a larger pistol? It isn't difficult.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by boyscout399

Yes. The rights spelled out in the Constitution are granted by God and recognized by the Constitution. It is clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

Not completely true. God has shown neither preference nor approval of jury trials, for example. And while He ordained kings, voting doesn't seem to come up that much when He lays out the rules.


In fact, the Constitution combines discussion of God-given natural rights with societal-given civil rights. While self-defense is a classic example of a natural right, the ownership and carriage of arms doesn't quite fit the bill.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by racerford

Rights are not given by the government; they are protected by the government.

Things seen as "rights" that are given by the government are privileges and are easily taken away.

racerford, is it really the government that protects our Rights?

The Constitution establishes the government, however, the appended Bill of Rights enumerates certain Rights the government cannot deny the people.

If the government is the protector of our Rights, why are they attacking them, chipping them away piece by piece.

So, does the government protect our Rights, or does the Constitution through the Bill of Rights protect our Rights from government infringement?