An analysis of open carry problems
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
FireForged
New member
That is an odd way to say you were or are a LEO. If you were or are a LEO investigator then it would tend to reason that you were a patrolman for years prior to that. Is that what you are saying?
Onward Allusion
New member
Fixed it... “I support the right, but generally, not the practice.”
If OC is legal in your neck of the woods, then by all means go for it as long as it makes sense. For me, I would have no problems OC'ing in sparsely populated areas in AZ, NM, or TX. In fact, I do, whenever I'm on or near my land in NM.
If OC is legal in your neck of the woods, then by all means go for it as long as it makes sense. For me, I would have no problems OC'ing in sparsely populated areas in AZ, NM, or TX. In fact, I do, whenever I'm on or near my land in NM.
In my state your weapon must be concealed as to not scare bystanders whatever that means. However I do think concealed is best for everyone. Here in New York state they will find any reason to take your permit. Deep concealed is the law except target or hunting. I use a pocket holster for my glock 43. No imprint and fast drawing
Last edited:
The linked article Friends Don’t Let Friends Open Carry was a good read and thank you for sharing it.
My thinking runs pretty much with that of the author. I live in the lovely Cleveland, Ohio suburbs and Ohio in general has pretty good laws concerning both concealed and open carry with open carry permitted less any permit for anyone who can legally purchase a gun. We have recently had demonstrations at Kent State University, you know the Four Dead in Ohio place where anti-gun sentiment runs strong.
Like many I open carry in the field when hunting carrying a S&W Model 29 to accompany my little Ruger 44 Carbine. I see no reason to strap on a handgun or rifle to walk up the block calling attention to myself. This will only lead to a collection of scared but well intention citizens calling 911 about a man with a gun. The police will be obligated to respond and I will explain I am carrying a gun simply because I can. While I am burning up city resources some poor guy across town might actually need the police whose time I am wasting. The police are fine with it and "get-it" but still have better things to do with their time and frankly so do I. Just my opinion based on my little corner of the world.
Ron
My thinking runs pretty much with that of the author. I live in the lovely Cleveland, Ohio suburbs and Ohio in general has pretty good laws concerning both concealed and open carry with open carry permitted less any permit for anyone who can legally purchase a gun. We have recently had demonstrations at Kent State University, you know the Four Dead in Ohio place where anti-gun sentiment runs strong.
Like many I open carry in the field when hunting carrying a S&W Model 29 to accompany my little Ruger 44 Carbine. I see no reason to strap on a handgun or rifle to walk up the block calling attention to myself. This will only lead to a collection of scared but well intention citizens calling 911 about a man with a gun. The police will be obligated to respond and I will explain I am carrying a gun simply because I can. While I am burning up city resources some poor guy across town might actually need the police whose time I am wasting. The police are fine with it and "get-it" but still have better things to do with their time and frankly so do I. Just my opinion based on my little corner of the world.
Ron
The handful of people I have seen open carrying in the past few years (my last 5 years were split between Colorado and Virginia, no one really carries much unless it is for work where I am now) have been carrying cheap handguns in cheap holsters. As soon as I see something sitting cocked off to the side in an Uncle Mikes velcro special I can get a sense for the level of training they have committed themselves to. I don't judge people by the quality of their firearms, but I do by the quality of their holsters.
I can recall two occasions where I have open carried, and both involved natural disasters and me on my own property.
Since Grossman has been mentioned: He has some good points, but I lost a lot of respect for him when I saw him speak in 2006, shortly after my third tour to Iraq when he said that the reason we were ineffective was due to people coming off of a mission and not sleeping due to playing video games. My question of "what about coming off of a three day operation only to being kept awake by a few out of control 1stSgts insisting that I police call someone else's cigarette butts at 0500 even though I am on a reverse schedule because I work at night outside the wire" was not well received.
I can recall two occasions where I have open carried, and both involved natural disasters and me on my own property.
Since Grossman has been mentioned: He has some good points, but I lost a lot of respect for him when I saw him speak in 2006, shortly after my third tour to Iraq when he said that the reason we were ineffective was due to people coming off of a mission and not sleeping due to playing video games. My question of "what about coming off of a three day operation only to being kept awake by a few out of control 1stSgts insisting that I police call someone else's cigarette butts at 0500 even though I am on a reverse schedule because I work at night outside the wire" was not well received.
The way I see it, you aren't the one burning up city resources.
two stories about resource "wasting"...
A while back, we had a horse "founder" (a condition where the horse basically eats too much of the wrong stuff and gets sick, it can be fatal!) We followed the vet's instructions, which were to pen the horse, and only feed it a small amount until it recovered. Some concerned citizen, who could see the pen as they drove by, called the Sheriff, saying we were mistreating the horse. (Because they couldn't see any hay bales in the pen, they were sure we were starving the horse.) We met the deputy when he came to check it out, and explained things. Yes, there was no feed in the pen, it was Doctors orders..etc.
The next week, SAME thing, different deputy. And again the week after. Different deputy each time. After the 3rd time, the word was put out in the dept, that the horse was being cared for, properly, and that further complaints on this matter were not to be responded to. Also that the person making the complaint was being looked at for filing false reports...
WE weren't wasting the Sheriff's time, but somebody was...
other story, resource waste, avoided!...
(I heard this on the scanner..)
Police dispatcher: All units! respond to man with a gun, on the roof of "ABC" motel!"
Other voice on radio: "All units, STAND DOWN, it's a drill!"
Dispatch: All units, respond! there is no drill scheduled!
Voice: All units, stand down, it's a DRILL!!"
Dispatch: All units, respond, there is no drill scheduled!"
Voice: All units, this is Sgt XXXXX, do not respond, it is a drill. The guy is installing a satellite antenna, he does NOT have a gun, he has a DRILL!!!!
I don't open carry for the simple reason that I don't want anyone to know that I am carrying. There are bad people that also walk amongst the good folks. If a criminal wants to commit a crime and they know you are an armed citizen, you will be the first they are going to deal with/take out.
I hear this all the time and its not invalid, but I wonder why no one ever seems to mention the other side of the coin. IF concealed carry means that criminals aren't certain, and therefore sometimes don't commit crimes due to that, (the evidence seems to support that idea), then there are also criminals who won't commit a crime (or commit it near you) when they ARE certain you are armed.
Also hear constantly about how they bad guys are going to bushwack you and get your gun, never seem to hear the odds on their being shot, trying to get someone's gun.
I do agree, concealed carry is a better choice, when you are in our urban jungles, BUT we need open carry allowed as well, because everyone doesn't live where there are hordes of people scared spitless by the mere sight of someone with a gun.
I don't just carry concealed because of "hordes of people scared spitless by the mere sight of someone with a gun.". That seems like a bit of a strawman. I do believe open carry should remain a right.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat:
I agree and here in my State of Ohio I have that right to openly carry a gun. However, I choose not to exercise my right of open carry simply for the reasons I mentioned. While 44 Amp makes a very good point in his post #53 and he is right on target it doesn't change the fact that if I decide to exercise my right of open carry and stroll through downtown of any major or even small Ohio city I will constantly be approached by law enforcement responding to people calling about a man with a gun. Each time I respond with a "because I can" and they leave me alone. That does not make my problem of constantly being stopped go away. Yes, people should know I have a right to walk through downtown Cleveland, Ohio with an AR on my back or a handgun on my hip but unfortunately they don't know any better and their lack of understanding of the law and my rights somehow becomes my problem when it shouldn't be.
44Amp was well within his rights on his property to have his horse in a paddock less any oats but that right did not stop multiple visits from the sheriff department wasting his time explaining why the horse was in a paddock less any oats. This as a result of passers by calling the sheriff with concerns of animal abuse. Unfortunately 44Amp didn't have much choice as he followed veterinarian orders in the best interest of the horse.
So while here in my state I have a right to open carry it is not always in my best interest to do so and unfortunately those calling 911 are not held responsible for screwing up my day.
Ron
I agree and here in my State of Ohio I have that right to openly carry a gun. However, I choose not to exercise my right of open carry simply for the reasons I mentioned. While 44 Amp makes a very good point in his post #53 and he is right on target it doesn't change the fact that if I decide to exercise my right of open carry and stroll through downtown of any major or even small Ohio city I will constantly be approached by law enforcement responding to people calling about a man with a gun. Each time I respond with a "because I can" and they leave me alone. That does not make my problem of constantly being stopped go away. Yes, people should know I have a right to walk through downtown Cleveland, Ohio with an AR on my back or a handgun on my hip but unfortunately they don't know any better and their lack of understanding of the law and my rights somehow becomes my problem when it shouldn't be.
44Amp was well within his rights on his property to have his horse in a paddock less any oats but that right did not stop multiple visits from the sheriff department wasting his time explaining why the horse was in a paddock less any oats. This as a result of passers by calling the sheriff with concerns of animal abuse. Unfortunately 44Amp didn't have much choice as he followed veterinarian orders in the best interest of the horse.
So while here in my state I have a right to open carry it is not always in my best interest to do so and unfortunately those calling 911 are not held responsible for screwing up my day.
Ron
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I have some question about the legal basis for "The police will be obligated to respond." I know that the S.O.P for probably every department in the country is that they WILL respond to a call about a man with a gun, but are they actually "obligated" to do so? I respectfully submit that they are not obligated to do so, and that we need to do a better job of educating the police, the media, and the populace to eradicate what I believe to be a false belief.Reloadron said:
To look at it logically, why would the police be obligated to respond to a call about a man wearing a gun ... in a jurisdiction that allows citizens to legally carry a firearm? Since when, in the absence of some indication or report of UNlawful activity, is a police officer "obligated" to investigate apparently lawful activity? What is the officer investigating? Lawful behavior.
The corollary is driving a car. If you argue that, "In my state a permit is required to carry, so without investigating there's no way to know whether or not the person has a permit." Okay, but in every state in this country a license is required to operate a motor vehicle on public streets and roads. If you follow the "How do you know he has a permit ..." logic, the obvious conclusion is that the police should be stopping every car they see to verify that the driver has a license. But if they did that, the outcry would be deafening, and the ACLU would have a field day.
Why is wearing a gun -- concealed or openly -- any different? If carry is legal, then an officer should not be entitled/authorized to stop the bearer and ask to see his/her permit (in states that require them) unless there is some genuine indication of unlawful activity by the bearer. Just as the police don't stop drivers and ask for their license unless they commit some sort of infraction, like speeding, running a red light, driving with defective equipment, etc.
So, IMHO, the proper response to a man with a gun call should begin with the dispatcher. The call comes in from a breathless citizen excitedly reporting a "man with a gun." The first question should be:
D: What is the person doing with the gun?
C: He's ... he's .. he has this BIG GUN in a BLACK holster on his belt!!!!!
D: Okay, but is he doing anything illegal with the gun, like waving it around or pointing at people?
C: Well, no, not yet. But, but ... it's a GUN! Please send the SWAT team as quick as you can!
D: M'am, it's legal to carry a gun in this state. Unless he's doing something illegal, we have no reason to waste our officers' time investigating. Have a nice day.
That's in an ideal world ... which we almost certainly will not see within my lifetime. Despite the legal requirements established in Terry v. Ohio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Originally Posted by: Aguila_Blanca
As to the law it beats the heck out of me. I have no clue as to if they have a legal binding responsibility to respond. What I can tell you is that they will respond to a complaint of a man with a gun and I can pretty much tell you the dispatcher will ask a few questions but not in any great detail.
It also works this way. Let's say a dispatcher applies your line of questioning and let's say it goes exactly as you covered.
Now we all know that all 911 calls are recorded. Let's say the man with a gun is out to settle a score with another neighbor. Following the phone call by the good Samaritan the man with a gun draws that gun and blows away a neighbor.
I think we all know how that will play out in the courts and before it ever gets to court the media will hold court and the involved police department will be condemned. The family of the deceased will get a large cash settlement and as quick as it began it's over. Sadly that is how it will play out and we have seen it before.
Locally here is a classic: The shooting of Tamir Rice.
Keep in mind all of the images of the kid were kindergarten pictures. When he was shot and killed he was over 200 Lbs and very adult looking. The gun was very real looking and the orange tip had been painted black. The dispatcher failed to pass along that the 911 caller thought it was just possibly a kid. Talk about a mess?
Anyway, as I mentioned, I have a right which I simply choose not to exercise and I mentioned why I choose not to exercise that right. Additionally in my decision making I choose to keep my gun concealed simply because I see that as a more prudent solution to carry where I am and for my conditions.
Ron
As to the law it beats the heck out of me. I have no clue as to if they have a legal binding responsibility to respond. What I can tell you is that they will respond to a complaint of a man with a gun and I can pretty much tell you the dispatcher will ask a few questions but not in any great detail.
It also works this way. Let's say a dispatcher applies your line of questioning and let's say it goes exactly as you covered.
Now we all know that all 911 calls are recorded. Let's say the man with a gun is out to settle a score with another neighbor. Following the phone call by the good Samaritan the man with a gun draws that gun and blows away a neighbor.
I think we all know how that will play out in the courts and before it ever gets to court the media will hold court and the involved police department will be condemned. The family of the deceased will get a large cash settlement and as quick as it began it's over. Sadly that is how it will play out and we have seen it before.
Locally here is a classic: The shooting of Tamir Rice.
Keep in mind all of the images of the kid were kindergarten pictures. When he was shot and killed he was over 200 Lbs and very adult looking. The gun was very real looking and the orange tip had been painted black. The dispatcher failed to pass along that the 911 caller thought it was just possibly a kid. Talk about a mess?
Anyway, as I mentioned, I have a right which I simply choose not to exercise and I mentioned why I choose not to exercise that right. Additionally in my decision making I choose to keep my gun concealed simply because I see that as a more prudent solution to carry where I am and for my conditions.
Ron