JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I have yet to recieve a reply to either of my emails to corporate. I would suggest a personal inquiry on policy from you to see if you get a reply. If you pm me I will send you my email so you can read mine. It was very polite and not demanding at all.
 
I CC everyday and when I see OC Im ALWAYS keeping an eye on the guy.(and my draw hand free)

Thats the condition of our society, either get ORCHL, lock it in your car, or get asked to leave. I dont really have a problem with that.
 
I CC everyday and when I see OC Im ALWAYS keeping an eye on the guy.(and my draw hand free)

Thats the condition of our society, either get ORCHL, lock it in your car, or get asked to leave. I dont really have a problem with that.

I highly doubt you'll run into any criminals who are openly carrying their gun. Typically people up to no good try not to draw attention to themselves. Standing there like quick draw mcgraw is a good way to get shot imo
 
Credit to "Mainsail" at usacarry.com Best post I've ever seen on the matter.

"The Open Carry Argument





The Open Carry Argument

My primary goal when I'm out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don't want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another's death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.

Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it's only the degree of loss that's negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. There's a very good reason for this. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you always lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail.

Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I've ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don't attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It's all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion's teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion's teeth and knows to stay well clear.

Deterrent Value:
When I'm carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth' are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don't want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise' the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

Remember, I don't want to be a victim and I don't want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal's gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there's something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it's every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.

The Five Stages of Violent Crime
I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family's sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.




The Five Stages of Violent Crime:
Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:
1) Intent
2) Interview
3) Positioning
4) Attack
5) Reaction I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there's not a lot I can do personally to stop another's intent, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. For the sake of argument, let's remove weapons from the equation for just a moment. A 5'2" unarmed attacker isn't going to choose a 6'6" victim over a 5'1" victim, right? He's going to attack the easier target. Now let's come back to the reality of violent crime and add back the weapons. Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to ‘fix' the situation. It's seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it's better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second. A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the ‘interview' stage; it's completely ineffectual in that role. Open carry is the only method that provides a direct deterrent. Let's say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the ‘positioning' stage. Chances are pretty good he'll see it at some point then, right? Then, let's say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I'm going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and equipment) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer.

First One To Be Shot:
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot' when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you're armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let's go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn't respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn't know if you're an armed citizen or a police officer and isn't going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn't make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes "Hollywood" style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.

Surprise:
Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it's better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I'll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what's happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you're walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there's an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don't draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they're just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife's throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call ‘defensive surprise' is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise' the enemy should they walk into an ambush.

It Will Get Stolen:
Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don't claim it could never happen; just that it's so remote a possibility that it doesn't warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer's gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let's suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.

It Scares People:
One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I've never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I've encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn't being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you'd be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don't, cant, or haven't carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.

I'm Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:
This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it's better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I'm glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.

Conclusion
No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don't put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood."

Thank you Mainsail!
 
Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.

I started to read it but had to stop when I read this bullshat statement.
Got to chock the author up as another loony open carry guy trying to justify his actions to himself.
 
I highly doubt you'll run into any criminals who are openly carrying their gun. Typically people up to no good try not to draw attention to themselves. Standing there like quick draw mcgraw is a good way to get shot imo

LOLZ!
Ya I should just ignore a guy with OC gun.

Standing there like quick draw mcgraw is a good way to get shot imo
Way to, mischaracterize my statement. Ad hominem much?
 
I for one support your concern and position. However my support is based on drawing a line on an unhealthy trend in America.

America is currently free (for the most part) due to the second amendment.
There is a solid purposeful driven trend away from that to the degree that large segments of the populace are uneducated on that second amendment right and the history that proves it's great wisdom and have been herded into a bias against firearms in general.
That trend sways opinion. That opinion affects businesses which in turn affects management failing to understand the bigger picture and making unwise decisions for fear of upsetting the current temperature of their stores social climate and calm.

I go to Bi-Mart and will continue to do so when I think I am getting a great deal that is unlikely to make them any real profit.
Otherwise their stupid stance is part of the problem with the future of America.

Here is a great ammo seller who is "Taking a Stand" and doing very well for it. (usaammo dot com)
Very refreshing. I will be buying ammo from them as needed simply to vote with cash and opinion.

I thank you for taking the time to take a stand.
 
BiMart is a business. Your open carry presents a tremendous potential opportunity cost to them. There are plenty of places to shop. How many other customers were in the store? 40? 50? If one or two of those customers feels the slightest bit uneasy, BiMart loses them to Wally World or Fred Meyer or wherever--for life. Now, I wouldn't have been one of those customers that they might have lost, but if I had been, it would have represented a loss of revenue over time that will easily exceed five figures.

It's not about you or your need to open carry. It's about other people and it's about BiMart being a business
 
Last Edited:
I didnt read all the posts in this thread, but to the people who think like this...

To me it seems all the hassle that a person gets while open carrying would motivate them to go get a chl, unless they just enjoy making people feel uncomfortable and attention of everyone around them

I guess I say, how should I, excercizing my rights as an American citizen make anyone else uncomfortable and if it does ***** em, their comfort is of far less consequence to me than excersizing the few rights I have left before I lose them. Emotions and feelings of others are not my concern. Should I not wear an Iron Cross to celebrate my German heritage because some may get their feelers hurt because of the negative connotations the Nazis gave it.
 
Like most issues I believe their is a root issue that is bigger.
That root issue is the second amendment.

The erosion of supportive sentiment and the balance of bias has shifted and will continue to shift away from that second amendment right.

The example of the OP and his experience is proof of that sentiment and shift.

So while we may all differ for reasons on open carry the real enemy here is that shift of American sentiment away from the simple right to bear arms.

I believe most here would agree that it is a good right to have and maintain and a sentiment that should get better and not worse in free America.
 
Exactly and that is an argument that I feel supports MORE OC everywhere that is legal and allowed. I do not flaunt or show off my gun nor do I feel the need to hide it. People need to see it and get used to it being there or it wont be, like Kalifornia.
 
It's not about you or your need to open carry. It's about other people and it's about BiMart being a business

I enjoy the freedom to have differing opinions and platforms worth debating over.
Your position is a justified platform worth a stance because it has merit. (I remember when the two party system was two parties that both had platforms of meritorious debate.)

However this issue runs deeper. This is not an issue of "no shirt, no service" or sensitivity to the feelings of others.
I don't mean to minimize or mock your position but to separate and define critical sentiment regarding the second amendment and draw a line on that deeper issue.

On the surface it is open carry and a business decision; underneath it is about freedoms, rights and a growing anti-gun sentiment that is getting worse.

  • When and where do we collectively draw the line and mobilize to do so?
  • Are there mobilized efforts towards minimizing gun rights and sway public sentiment that we should be more sensitive to and take a stand against?
  • I suggest that there is reason to be concerned beyond the issue here and that gun owners make greater efforts to work together in every situation.
 
Exactly and that is an argument that I feel supports MORE OC everywhere that is legal and allowed. I do not flaunt or show off my gun nor do I feel the need to hide it. People need to see it and get used to it being there or it wont be, like Kalifornia.
I agree. People should get used to seeing firearms.
They should get used to the idea and reality that they relate to their freedoms and way of life.
They should understand that without them their safety is at risk by criminals and bad government.
 
BiMart is a business. Your open carry presents a tremendous potential opportunity cost to them. There are plenty of places to shop. How many other customers were in the store? 40? 50? If one or two of those customers feels the slightest bit uneasy, BiMart loses them to Wally World or Fred Meyer or wherever--for life. Now, I wouldn't have been one of those customers that they might have lost, but if I had been, it would have represented a loss of revenue over time that will easily exceed five figures.

It's not about you or your need to open carry. It's about other people and it's about BiMart being a business

^This.

Open carry restrictions are not unlike smoking bans in public places or businesses. They're not saying you can't smoke, they're saying you can't smoke there. Be glad that the areas you live in haven't put it up to a vote; you might be sad to see what the majority think of it (or not.) And there's a lot more smokers than there are OC'ers.
 
I would say cuddos to the Bi Mart manager for being polite and respectful about it. You can't make everybody happy in this world. It was Gresham by the way. BiMart has a pharmacy...Even the BiMart Pharmacy in Eugene has been robbed during daylight hours. I believe in our right to OC. I have my CHL as well but choose not to display it because I don't want the unwanted attention. And because if some ahole decided to threaten somebody elses life in front of me he wouldn't know that I am carrying and be able to neutralize his threat..

It's also being respectful of others. In this persons situation they didn't have a OR CHL and didn't want to leave their weapon in the car. My training partner is big on his rights and can go all out on this conversation but to me it's not a big deal. It's the stores policy. Do I agree with it. NO. But I still wouldn't go in there with my weapon exposed anyways. Is it worth having your CHL being taken away if someone said hey that guy has a gun and he's touching it. Like what happened to the guy in Vancouver last year. He got arrested and had his CHL taken away I believe.

It's just a bunch of unwanted attention. Some people just go a little overboard about this. I know it's your right. That's great. It's mine too. But when you are on private property you have to follow their rules if you choose to open carry. Sorry that's life. At least the manager was polite about it. He has a job to do.

I had no problem going in to Safeway in Beaverton with my pistol exposed in my tactical thigh holster on training day and two magazine holders on my hip.

stay safe, stay smart!
 
I guess I say, how should I, excercizing my rights as an American citizen make anyone else uncomfortable and if it does ***** em, their comfort is of far less consequence to me than excersizing the few rights I have left before I lose them.

So whose rights take priority, yours or the business owner?
The business owner of course.
It is their right to prevent you from exercising your right on their property if that is what they choose.
The comfort of others may be of no concern to you and that is your right, just understand that your thought process will probably result in consequences you may not like.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top