Open Carry Nation Wide

[johnlives4christ]

What do yall think would happen if we could organize a national open carry day, and actually get folks to participate.

lets say, set it for sometime spring of next year. get it in circulation, on the news maybe, in papers, on the radio. get people on the local level to meet and form groups.

then on the day, everyone open carry everywhere you go (with the exception of work if you'll lose your job), even and especially places that it's illegal to carry.

what would happen?

cops couldnt arrest everyone. lets say 50,000 people gathered in nyc, while that's a drop in the bucket to the population there, thats a mighty big number of folks in one area.

i guess im thinking that if we were ALL to do it, then no one could stop us. we could demand that we're given back the rights we have lost concerning guns if we were all to make a single united stand.

thoughts?

~john

[RunningOnMT]

Hm...That might backfire on us John. We've got concealed carry now in most states and while in many open carry is legal, most folks don't. If the anti gun public starts whining when they see all those guns the politicians may clamp down on us one way or another. I guess I think we should be happy having concealed carry privileges.

[johnlives4christ]

im thinking along the lines of resisting

[xm774u]

it makes peeps nervous

[johnlives4christ]

it might make people nervous, but that is their problem, it shouldnt be case not to carry openly.

[wyoredot]

it might make people nervous, but that is their problem, it shouldnt be case not to carry openly.

Wish we lived a bit closer John, I would like to see nationwide constitutional carry.

[Clipper]

One of the problems with open carry that I see: You have to carry an EMPTY gun, should there be a problem in your neighborhood, YOU would be the first target because your gun is OPENLY carried and you have an EMPTY gun. Concealed is the way to go, keep it covered, keep it loaded, and respond as needed.

[johnlives4christ]

maybe in some parts you have to carry an empty gun. in kentucky you can carry it fully loaded.

[Stealthcarry]

As the author of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act has frequently said, "No one should ever know you are carrying. NO ONE!"

And yes, he DOES know more than you do....

[RunningOnMT]

I think John is thinking along the lines of "use your right's or you'll lose them", and actually I kind of agree with him. Open carry should be legal everywhere. My take is that's what the founders had in mind with the second amendment. In fact it has always been my belief that licensing for carry concealed or otherwise is an infringement on our second amendment rights. The framers already said our rights are God given, and specified the right to keep and bear arms as one of them. What gives the state the right to license, limit, tax, or otherwise interfere with those exercising that right?

My problem is that we already have our plates full with other issues. Electing honest people that believe in our constitution is the key to us obtaining our full constitutional rights. Without having done that first, we will end up butting heads with the likes of Schumer and Pelosi, and we will lose as long as they hold office. They have the full weight of law enforcement behind them.

[Helix_FR]

squeaky wheel gets the oil. Unfortunately the anti-gunner squeak sounds more like a tornado siren and they have a pit crew to oil it.

[lawdawg]

My problem is that we already have our plates full with other issues. Electing honest people that believe in our constitution is the key to us obtaining our full constitutional rights. Without having done that first, we will end up butting heads with the likes of Schumer and Pelosi, and we will lose as long as they hold office. They have the full weight of law enforcement behind them.

I agree. I think the BEST way to fight for your rights is at the voting booth. When all else fails, then take up resistance. From what I have seen in the last few years, we are actually making great strides. Landmark Supreme Court decisions, politicians abandoning their gun control platform (at least publicly), and we are just getting started.

As my signature quote implies I'm all for resistance when necessary, but everything in it's season (Ecclesiastes 3). We are trying to show the fearful liberals that we are level-headed, reasonable, and peaceful, law-abiding citizens who want to defend ourselves when necessary, which we are. Staging protests which breaks the law (however unconstitutional), resisting law enforcement, etc. only gives them ammo in their argument that we are to be feared, and therefore, disarmed. I think it would have the opposite effect of that intended in the long run.

We have a great opportunity to neuter the Obama administration this November, and to finish the job in 2012. Vote for those who support the 2nd amendment. I mean those who really support it, not just give lip service to it. We are winning this fight, let's not lose it by becoming overly-aggressive and over shooting our primary target.

[johnlives4christ]

our gun rights have been infringed upon since 1934with the passage of the National firearms act. unless there are previous laws im unaware of. everyone says their gun rights are important... but no one is willing to do anything about it. what we need to do is somehow send the message to congress, and to voters, that even if they dont like guns they cannot impose a law prohibiting their ownership or use.

right now people are under the impression that all they have to do is pass a law and guns would be either illegal or have to all be registered. the only problem they see is getting people to vote on it. they do not see armed resistance as a problem because for so long gun owners have complied with rules that are unconstitutional. just like they nibble away at our rights by passing the nfa, they could and want to do the same by making it a requirement to have all handguns registered, or all guns period. but where does it stop? how far are you willing to let them push before you push back. how many failed voting seasons does it take before you decide it's time to resist?

when a government is big enough to limit what its people can have, its big enough to take away everything you have.

i guess what im trying to say is this.

gun owners like us, the ones that see gun ownership and usage as a right instead of a privilege are not the majority, we're the minority now. most people dont see anything wrong with the national firearms act, even gun owners. and because we're the minority, its too late to vote our rights back. you should never have to vote to have something that is in the constitution as a GOD GIVEN RIGHT. so why aren't the gun owners willing to actually use their guns if need be to ensure that right, just like the founding fathers would want?

why do we all set by and get pissed off that they are trying to get some new law passed and then sigh a breathe of relief if it fails? if every gun owner only half of the gun owners in the country had an "illegal" gun and rallied in out states capitals the crowd of defiant citizens would be so big that we could not be stopped as a whole. you cannot arrest 20,000 people, or 50,000 people. if we could organize and band together to protest, and if we all had the attitude of "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" then congress would listen. but as it is, we are the minority, just one of many minorities. our voice is small.

if there are 10 people stranded on an island, 9 men and 1 woman. if they all take a vote to rape the woman and only the woman opposes the idea, is this democracy? just because something gets voted in does not make it right. and it does not mean that we should all comply. because the second amendment is a right, not a privilege, it is something we should do without restrictions, and if they try to stop us with force... we should resist with force.

[BETH]

open carry is legal in Ct. but most people are not doing it, i think if all the crooks saw everyone with guns they would think twice

[johnlives4christ]

you're right beth, they would think twice. ya know someone robbed the bank in walmart a few months back.. i couldnt believe it. i bet if the guy in line next to this guy had of had a pistol on his hip the guy would have lost his nerve

[BETH]

exactly

[johnlives4christ]

if had of been there, he would have been looking down the barrel of a glock lol

[PCMeanie]

I think open carry is along the same lines as being a Dad...
Anyone with a gun can open carry, that does NOT mean they know the responsiblity that carries!
Any healthy male can be a father, those of us with children know it takes far more than that to be a Dad!

I'm not opposed to open carry because I am usually armed and know I can defend myself if the situation calls for it. What about the people who know nothing about gun safety and responsibilty? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just undecided about the facts that come with it.

We see police and government officials carrying weapons and we naturally assume that they have had the proper training and know what is involved with carrying that weapon. John Doe walks through Wal-Mart packing a 357 on his hip, I might not be so inclined to just go on about my business. Don't take that the wrong way, I've done it myself after reading another open carry post on here just to test the water! I got some strange looks, but nobody actually confronted me other than to ask what I was "packing".

Who knows? I can see the pros and cons of both and I have no clue what the solution might be? I know that I am confident in my firearm training and it's not something I announce to the rest of the world. I guess the big advantage to carrying concealed is the element of suprise. Open carry you pretty much display your intentions right out there for everyone to see! I'll still try a few other places with the open carry, but for the most part I'll keep it in my pants so to speak! ;)

[johnlives4christ]

that is one disadvantage to open carry. people get nervous. but i dont think it should be a reason not to carry. a lot of people think that if they are offended or uncomfortable by something that you shouldnt be allowed to do it.

i dont see any more responsibility in open carrying a handgun as i do owning one for self defense. safe firearms handling and common sense are a must.

[GoodOl'12gauge]

I think open carry everywere would be wonderful. The bad guys would weed themselves out quickly and the irresponsible would also quickly be weeded out, and then crime and gun accidents would be zero zip sh*t, or at least really low.

[RunningOnMT]

I agree. I think the BEST way to fight for your rights is at the voting booth. When all else fails, then take up resistance. From what I have seen in the last few years, we are actually making great strides. Landmark Supreme Court decisions, politicians abandoning their gun control platform (at least publicly), and we are just getting started.

As my signature quote implies I'm all for resistance when necessary, but everything in it's season (Ecclesiastes 3). We are trying to show the fearful liberals that we are level-headed, reasonable, and peaceful, law-abiding citizens who want to defend ourselves when necessary, which we are. Staging protests which breaks the law (however unconstitutional), resisting law enforcement, etc. only gives them ammo in their argument that we are to be feared, and therefore, disarmed. I think it would have the opposite effect of that intended in the long run.

We have a great opportunity to neuter the Obama administration this November, and to finish the job in 2012. Vote for those who support the 2nd amendment. I mean those who really support it, not just give lip service to it. We are winning this fight, let's not lose it by becoming overly-aggressive and over shooting our primary target.

+1 You are absolutely right. It does little good to be right if you lose.

[lawdawg]

Open carry is a show of force. That is why police do it (I do not open carry when off-duty and sometimes don't even on-duty now that I'm a "plains clothes" officer, though I'm always armed), it is why the military does it only in times when force needs to be shown.

If a large group of individuals suddenly showed up in one place openly carrying arms and daring anyone to do anything about it, it would be viewed as a show of force by those people. Displaying a weapon of any type is considered in any society as a threatening gesture. I'm not saying I'm against it, but I think it would have disasterous consequences for the cause.

There are a lot of people who are not gunowners, but support the 2nd amendment, or are "casual" gunowners. There are a lot of people who think gunowners are a bunch of nuts. I think such an act would turn the majority who now support us, against us. They would not view it as a peaceful protest, but as a show of force or threat of hostility by armed people, not against a tyranical government, but against them. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of people do not think of the US Government as tyranical at this point. They would then demand gun control. Most gun owners, who are peaceful, law-abiding, citizens would be the ones to suffer. A few defiant ones, like you seem to be, would resist, but would not win against such a majority. You would be weeded out quickly and the gun-grabbers would be chanting their I-told-you-so's all the while.

It is important to maintain an armed citizenry. It reduces crime, it prevents foreign invasions, and promotes a safer society. But it MUST be done in a responsible manner. To every single amendment in our Bill of Rights, there are exceptions. Those exceptions incur when it may encroach on the safety or rights of others. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is a classic example of an exception to the 1st amendment. Exigent circumstances such as the police hearing someone screaming for help in a house allows them to enter and search without a warrant, an exception to the 4th amendment. So too must there be some exceptions and restrictions of the 2nd amendment. Scaring people with guns is one of those exceptions. Our rights MUST be tempered with responsibilty.

Here in Alabama, open carry is allowed. But not by a large group of people gathered for protest. I, as a citizen and a police officer, do not feel threatened by people openly carrying a weapon. But I would feel threatened by a large group of protesters openly carrying weapons.

You said that you were "thinking along the lines of resisting". The thing is when I encounter a person resisting arrest that is unarmed, I either fight them, TASER them, or use other "less-lethal" ways to gain their compliance. When I encounter an armed person who resists, I shoot them. Of course, you would shoot back, which would lead to a gunfight. As I've said before, every single police officer I know SUPPORTS your right to own and possess a gun. None of us supports your "right" to shoot at us or to scare the populace. I would that every law-abiding person would arm themselves, but not if you are scaring little old ladies because a bunch of gun-toting protestors are waking down the street protesting. Neither would you have the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans in such a case.

The bottom line is we lead by example. If you want to prove to America that it's OK to allow its citizens to be armed, then show them. A lot of states allow for gun carry. Once the others see how low crime is and how few people are killed by us "gun nuts", then maybe they will follow suit. But when you show them that the armed citizens will only take to the streets and protest by resistance, then expect even more draconian laws to be passed even by those states where carry is allowed.

[johnlives4christ]

lawdawg you make some very good points, and you're very correct. i am just worried that we are letting them push us too far. while open carry is legal here in kentucky nobody does it for fear someone will get scared. i do it, and haven't had any problems yet, but i am prepared to be hassled because someone called the cops.

if they were to make it illegal to open carry here in kentucky, then while i could carry concealed, because i have a license, my rights would be violated. i cant say i would have a shoot out with the cops because i wouldnt want to be killed without my death having some impact to better the country or the world. i dont know what i would do, there wouldnt be much i could do, because while my rights are violated, if i went ahead and exercised my rights i would be jailed. so my hands would be tied. i couldnt exercise my right to carry a gun under, and if i tried i would be billed as a criminal.

it angers me to thing that others would not care if our rights were to be violated. when my rights are violated what should i do? should i just set and take it? or should i resist by openly carrying and refusing to comply if the police try to stop me? obviously i would take it because i wouldnt want to die for no reason. but if there was 1000 of us all with the same purpose, we might could make a stand.

[John'sWife]

I think open carry nationwide is a good idea. If criminals saw that the average citizen was armed they would probably think twice about committing a crime. It is our right to carry a firearm according to the 2nd ammendment. No one should have the right to take our freedoms away. I think if we all stood together and carried openly we would make a difference in this country.

[vytoland]

I think open carry nationwide is a good idea. If criminals saw that the average citizen was armed they would probably think twice about committing a crime. It is our right to carry a firearm according to the 2nd ammendment. No one should have the right to take our freedoms away. I think if we all stood together and carried openly we would make a difference in this country.

BINGO!!! this is THE key to bringing back what was once ours......government of the people, by the people, for the people. can we all get together and start the ball rolling:cool:

[lawdawg]

lawdawg you make some very good points, and you're very correct. i am just worried that we are letting them push us too far. while open carry is legal here in kentucky nobody does it for fear someone will get scared. i do it, and haven't had any problems yet, but i am prepared to be hassled because someone called the cops.

if they were to make it illegal to open carry here in kentucky, then while i could carry concealed, because i have a license, my rights would be violated. i cant say i would have a shoot out with the cops because i wouldnt want to be killed without my death having some impact to better the country or the world. i dont know what i would do, there wouldnt be much i could do, because while my rights are violated, if i went ahead and exercised my rights i would be jailed. so my hands would be tied. i couldnt exercise my right to carry a gun under, and if i tried i would be billed as a criminal.

it angers me to thing that others would not care if our rights were to be violated. when my rights are violated what should i do? should i just set and take it? or should i resist by openly carrying and refusing to comply if the police try to stop me? obviously i would take it because i wouldnt want to die for no reason. but if there was 1000 of us all with the same purpose, we might could make a stand.

PRECISELY MY POINT! Let's attempt to do everything in our power to do this the legal, peaceful way. We, as a nation, are squandering our rights by voting people in office who have systematically taken those rights, or portions of our rights, away. If we want those rights back, we need to first get those out of office who have taken our rights and replace them with good quality candidates.

Keep in mind that a right is something that is given by a government; and can be taken by that same government, or by another government that replaces it. Our system of government is more fragile than I believe a lot of people think it is. It needs to be handled with extreme care by us people maintain that government. We have not become a tyranny yet, but we are well on our way IF we do not make some changes REAL SOON!

Now is the time for wisdom, not force. There may be a time when force becomes necessary, but not now. And you MUST have the backing of the majority. Our forefathers understood this.

They sought the support of the people, although many colonist remained loyal to the crown (more than many people think), but they also sought the support of other nations most notably France. Without the support of the many, the American Revolution would be but a footnote in our British history books about how a few rebels tried to rise up but was quickly put down by "our" British troops. We must have the support of the majority as well. And we are (slowly) gaining it. Let's not lose it.

[johnlives4christ]

yes, the best thing is to do all we can legally now. but we do need to be prepared to resist with force should all of our legal recourses be exhausted.

i just wish more people would become passionate about their firearms rights. i know a gun owner that even has a ccw permit, but he doesnt believe a person should be able to own a hi capacity magazine for a rifle/handgun. said he sees no reason for it other then to shoot at the cops or each other.

i tried to discuss it with him, but his mind is made up. and it frustrates me because it's not about what we need or dont need, it's about freedom. because truth be told, i haven't needed my gun since i started carrying it.

[lawdawg]

yes, the best thing is to do all we can legally now. but we do need to be prepared to resist with force should all of our legal recourses be exhausted.

i just wish more people would become passionate about their firearms rights. i know a gun owner that even has a ccw permit, but he doesnt believe a person should be able to own a hi capacity magazine for a rifle/handgun. said he sees no reason for it other then to shoot at the cops or each other.

i tried to discuss it with him, but his mind is made up. and it frustrates me because it's not about what we need or dont need, it's about freedom. because truth be told, i haven't needed my gun since i started carrying it.

EXACTLY!! I've never needed to excersize my right against warrantless searches and seizures, my right to a jury trial, my right not to testify against myself, my right not to be forced to quarter soldiers (3rd amendment), or MANY other rights. BUT, it sure is nice to have them in place, in case I ever do! And I would fight for those rights just like the ones I do excersize. The problem with a lot of people seems to be that if something doesn't particularly pertain to them, it is not important to them. When you start discarding rights, just because they don't apply to you; then you water down the whole Constitution and it will soon become worthless. Just like the proverbial frog in the boiling water, when the heat is slowly turned up, the frog gets used to the gradual increase and sits there until he boils.

[johnlives4christ]

absolutely. i've been sayin that for years The problem with a lot of people seems to be that if something doesn't particularly pertain to them, it is not important to them.

i go so frustrated, angry and disgusted at people, because they do not care about something that isnt' directly related to them.

they have a county wide smoking ban here. basically it says that you cannot smoke in a place of business, either the employees or the customers, or the owners. you have to be 15 feet from the door outside to smoke. the old guy that runs the tractor repair shop across the road is not supposed to let his employee's or his customers smoke in the building. 99% of the people that go in there are men, and most probably smoke, the ones that dont smoke raise tobacco on their farms. no one ever complained about people smoking there. fact is a business has the right to allow or not allow smoking in their building, or they used to. i have heard, that because of the way the law reads, that if a farmer has field hands helping him, and invites them to come over for supper after work, he is not supposed to smoke in his own house until his "employees" leave.

i am completely against this. it's an infringement on peoples rights. while i dont smoke, and i dont like to be around cigarette smoke, i see that it is just one more little bite out of the big "freedom pie".

i dont remember how the voting was done on it, but obviously there was a lot more people that didnt like smoking come to vote then people that do like to smoke. and while i dont smoke, and i dont want to go to mcdonalds while others are smoking, i can expect that those working at the tractor repair store haven't ever gotten a complain because they smoke. the real story is, that it's not popular to smoke anymore. because it's not popular like it was in the 70's, there are those that think because something isn't the best thing for them, it must not be the best thing for others also. and obviously others dont see the danger associated with smoking (since they still smoke) so the only solution is to limit as much as we can smoking.

in my opinion, alcohol is much more harmful to a persons body, and to those around them, then cigarettes are. but because alcohol is popular with the masses, it is encouraged, adds are put on tv for this type or that type of beer or liquor. but cigarette adds aren't allowed on tv anymore... because it's not popular. taking cigarette adds off tv doesnt stop kids from wanting to smoke, just like taking alcohol adds off tv wouldnt make them want not to drink.

it comes down to other people thinking they know what is best for someone else, when in reality, God knows whats best, and you know whats best for you more so than others do.

[hogger129]

absolutely. i've been sayin that for years The problem with a lot of people seems to be that if something doesn't particularly pertain to them, it is not important to them.

i go so frustrated, angry and disgusted at people, because they do not care about something that isnt' directly related to them.

they have a county wide smoking ban here. basically it says that you cannot smoke in a place of business, either the employees or the customers, or the owners. you have to be 15 feet from the door outside to smoke. the old guy that runs the tractor repair shop across the road is not supposed to let his employee's or his customers smoke in the building. 99% of the people that go in there are men, and most probably smoke, the ones that dont smoke raise tobacco on their farms. no one ever complained about people smoking there. fact is a business has the right to allow or not allow smoking in their building, or they used to. i have heard, that because of the way the law reads, that if a farmer has field hands helping him, and invites them to come over for supper after work, he is not supposed to smoke in his own house until his "employees" leave.

i am completely against this. it's an infringement on peoples rights. while i dont smoke, and i dont like to be around cigarette smoke, i see that it is just one more little bite out of the big "freedom pie".

i dont remember how the voting was done on it, but obviously there was a lot more people that didnt like smoking come to vote then people that do like to smoke. and while i dont smoke, and i dont want to go to mcdonalds while others are smoking, i can expect that those working at the tractor repair store haven't ever gotten a complain because they smoke. the real story is, that it's not popular to smoke anymore. because it's not popular like it was in the 70's, there are those that think because something isn't the best thing for them, it must not be the best thing for others also. and obviously others dont see the danger associated with smoking (since they still smoke) so the only solution is to limit as much as we can smoking.

in my opinion, alcohol is much more harmful to a persons body, and to those around them, then cigarettes are. but because alcohol is popular with the masses, it is encouraged, adds are put on tv for this type or that type of beer or liquor. but cigarette adds aren't allowed on tv anymore... because it's not popular. taking cigarette adds off tv doesnt stop kids from wanting to smoke, just like taking alcohol adds off tv wouldnt make them want not to drink.

it comes down to other people thinking they know what is best for someone else, when in reality, God knows whats best, and you know whats best for you more so than others do.

I enjoy a good drink or two. It's just that you have to be responsible with it. Just like anything else. A car. A motorcycle. A gun for example.

And I agree. Whether or not a place is "smoking" or "non-smoking" should be completely left at the discretion of the owner.

I know a girl who works in a bar/restaurant that used to be smoking. She always complained about how it was harmful to her health. But if it was such a problem, couldn't she gone and looked for a better job? Instead she would sit there and complain about how annoying it was and all this and that.

I agree. It's just one more step closer to totally controlling peoples' every day life. Just like sooner or later, unhealthy food will be heavily taxed or just outlawed all together.

What I do in my own home and in my own life should be none of anybody else's business, period!

[johnlives4christ]

there is talk about stopping mcdonalds from having toys included in happy meals, and i've heard aboud purposed laws against fatty fast foods, but you know what, no one has ever force fed me a big mac. it is my choice. at least i can still make that choice....for now

[JLA]

Im gonna wear my .44 on one hip and my 1911 on the other.

[johnlives4christ]

well, where are you going to wear'em at?