NRA statement on open carrying of long guns

[bnsaibum]

It would be nice if it were that easy. But the OC folks I know would be offended by an offer to carry a 'fake' gun on their belt.

Some surely would be offended. Still, it is a better idea. It is even promoted by OCT as a better alternative.

https://www.facebook.com/OpenCarryT...41828.549190831794208/701137789932844/?type=1
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/open-carry-texas-adjusts-strategy-for-open-carry-demonstrations/

 

[The Heretic]

"
Further, the implications of making OC illegal as some "secret shame firearm owners" have made are dire. The whole reason why I own an AR is if the bubblegum hits the fan I have a weapon I can take with me that can put 3 rounds down range much faster than your 30-06. I don't want or need an officer the have a reason to stop me in a survival situation just to take my firearm away "because we can't be trusted when the bubblegum hits the fan." Making OC illegal affectingly kills any means of self defense with a rifle outside of your home. And if you have read any of the recent court rulings you will know the 2A does in fact extend outside of your home. Period.

So, I guess what I'm saying is this situation has circumstances that goes beyond some people trying to intimidate people, it goes beyond people looking to fight with police, it is a legitimate fight for rights, a respectful fight for rights.

And I fully support it. We can't afford to be divided on this issue. And I refuse to hear that refraining from carrying a rifle in public is just "common sense." Hmmmm, where have I heard that before?


Eagle

1) In a SHTF situation, a LEO isn't going to need a law to stop and harass you for carrying a weapon, whether it is open carry or not. In emergency situations we have seen that the government at any level, from city to county to state to federal, almost always oversteps the bounds of the authority we have given them. Government does this all in the name of "emergency" and "security" and "safety".

Here in Oregon we have no statewide ban on Open Carry, but you can bet the LEOs will show up and at least question you if you open carry in any urban/suburban area and there is no region wide emergency going on. Add in an emergency SHTF situation and LEOs will likely have checkpoints and be actively confiscating any found weapons of any sort - carrying openly may get you shot on the spot.

Example: Katrina

2) This "protest" by carrying openly does harm not good.

These open carry stunts panic people.

Panic is not something pro-gun people want others to associate with guns.

If you think these stunts are doing any good and changing any minds, indeed, if you don't recognize the harm it is doing, then you are delusional.

Sorry, but it is as simple as that.

Stop doing it.

 

[The Heretic]

Let me put it this way:

If you are sitting in a restaurant and you observe a uniformed LEO enter the restaurant - you notice this do you not? You generally have nothing to fear from the LEO, but you notice it nonetheless, more so than a person in civilian attire - most people do.

Now, if that LEO walked in with a long gun, saw their shotgun or an AR - the usual long guns for a LEO - you would not only take notice, but would also wonder why and start looking around for possible threats. If you had loved ones with you, you might start thinking about leaving with them lest some situation go down that could threaten them - like an arrest of an armed hostile.

Now most people are used to seeing openly armed LEOs, so they don't panic when in their presence - but they do take notice. They take much more notice when a LEO has a long gun because it can mean there is an active threat situation taking place in the immediate vicinity. You would be stupid to not take notice.

Now move to the situation where the person entering a restaurant is in civilian attire and carrying a long gun. What would most people's immediate reaction be? That this person is a threat themselves.

Why?

Several reasons (and I shouldn't have to enumerate them, but I will):

1) The instances of crazies shooting people in just such situations and the constant barrage of the media and public talking about it. Where I work, we have several times a year, had meetings about active shooter situations and what to do about it.

The government, LEO bureaucrats, the media, gun control advocates, have a vested interest in keeping these things in the minds of the public - regardless of how much of a threat they actually are.

Running around in public places openly carrying long guns where and when they are not expected by the public, simply and conveniently works to the advantage of those people who would very much like to see the general populace disarmed.

2) There simply is no real valid need or reason for a person to be carrying a long gun in these places in that context. Indeed, there are a number of reasons why you shouldn't open carry like that.

Granted, it is your right - but the difference between a mature stable adult and an immature teenager is the discretion and discernment to know the difference between whether you can do something and whether you should do something.

If that doesn't give you a clue to how I view people who insist on these open carry stunts, then I don't think making it any clearer will help - but I will do it anyway; such people are grandstanding immature idiots who care more about the attention they get than about the impact it will have on the freedom to exercise our rights.

 

[bnsaibum]

And still few solutions suggested that will reduce or stop the Texas open carry of rifles while showing your support for the 2nd, other people's exercise thereof, and help Texas get their law changed. There are a lot of cheese lovers, though.

How about contacting the Texas politicians? Tell them that Oregon (or WA, etc.) has legal unlicensed open carry and there have been very few instances of open carry of rifles and even fewer criminal problems with open carry.

<broken link removed>
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Now, if that LEO walked in with a long gun, saw their shotgun or an AR - the usual long guns for a LEO - you would not only take notice, but would also wonder why and start looking around for possible threats.

There simply is no real valid need or reason for a person to be carrying a long gun in these places in that context. Indeed, there are a number of reasons why you shouldn't open carry like that.

Granted, it is your right - but the difference between a mature stable adult and an immature teenager is the discretion and discernment to know the difference between whether you can do something and whether you should do something.

If that doesn't give you a clue to how I view people who insist on these open carry stunts, then I don't think making it any clearer will help - but I will do it anyway; such people are grandstanding immature idiots who care more about the attention they get than about the impact it will have on the freedom to exercise our rights.

See, I respected your argument until you said "the difference between a mature stable adult and an immature teenager" and "such people are grandstanding immature idiots who care more about the attention they get."

I can see your point of view. Although I would argue that if I saw an LEO with an M4 or a shotgun hung in a single point sling I wouldn't bat a concerned eye other than the fact that I would love to see their setup. I would not assume there was a threat unless they came in guns at low and ready


not smiling and slowly sombering into the restaurant, casually looking at the menu.




If you can't read a person beyond a gun then that is purely your problem. It may be a problem that is more prevalent in today's society but I would say that vast majority of people can look at a persons behavior and see that someone means no harm beyond if they have a gun. I will give you that OCing a rifle is unusual, not that it should be, just that most don't do it. Again there is a difference between the person on the left and the person on the right.

Now, what I have seen from personal experience is that people will ask questions as to why you are carrying a firearm they don't normally see, or in my case my P99. This gives you an opportunity to be a spokesmen. It is a soapbox, it is grandstanding, but to call someone "unstable, immature, teenager" is unwarranted. The vast majority of OCers don't OC because they didn't get enough hugs as a child. It's to send a message. It's not like they are doing it for kicks and giggles. There is a reason. A message that I have seen people take very well and very few people take poorly. I would also would not equate the actions of businesses fearing the loss of any customers as public opinion.

My over all point is that OCing whatever you choose, long gun or side arm, is ok, as long as you are courteous. Such as calling ahead, asking for permission, holding doors open for people, smiling, picking up a location of protest after begin finished. It's not OCing that is the problem in my eyes, it is how we hold ourselves when we OC.

If Oregon were to pass a law that stated I couldn't carry my Walther P99 openly, if they made it so I had to make sure my clothes were baggy enough so I can make sure I'm not printing, you can bet your bubblegum I would be out on the street every off day with my rifle slung across my chest.


Again, with respect,



Eagle

 

[John H]

If you can't read a person beyond a gun then that is purely your problem.

There won't be time when Tapco Commando is coming at you

 

[The Heretic]

Take it any way you want, that is my opinion, and I am used to both firearms and LEOs (having been a LEO when I was younger). You can imagine how the general public reacts to such circumstances.

You can say it isn't your problem what other people think of what you do, and that is often a good attitude, but it also an insular and naive attitude, especially when other people can restrict your freedom.

I truly wish we lived in a nation where the legal system respected and protected our rights, including our Second Amendment rights, but the reality is that we don't. We live in a nation where the majority rules and that majority does not give one nanogram of fecal matter about your rights, they only care about whether you scare them or not with what they see as a big bad evil gun.

If you continue to scare them in this manner they will very predictably react by restricting your right to own said firearms. Now normally I would let it go at that since people who do stupid things usually deserve the consequences, but in addition to restricting your rights, they also restrict my rights, and that just plain irritates me.

So I don't really care that your feelings are hurt that I, by inference, implied you were or are an immature teenager just seeking attention - if the shoe fits...

I do care is that what other people do results in an impact on me.

So I will say it again - stop doing that.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

See I refuse to roll over when public perception inhibits my rights. If the public is so alienated to what our rights are that they are fearful of peaceful people then things need to change. I won't wait or apologize, over the next 100 years public perception will undoubtedly change to not allowing firearms at all. When that happens should we roll over then too just because they might think us mentally defective because we oppose them? No, no one need apologize for partaking in a right. So again, I say no I won't stop. With as much respect as I can muster.

 

[The Heretic]

Not saying roll over, I am saying don't do pull stupid stunts guaranteed to further incite the masses to be more inclined to restrict your rights.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

It is certainly your Right to view it that way.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

My criminal law professor told us something that has never left my memory:

"Your right to swing your fist ...ends at my nose."

Similarly, it could be argued that our right to bear arms in certain circumstances ends when our behavior negatively effects someone else (and in turn, comes back to bite us in the arse.)

Your free speech right does not include yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

My patrol procedures professor Norm Reiter (Portland police bureau central precinct captain) gave us another illustration: if you come to a 4-way intersection and the guy on your left doesn't yield right-of-way, and you proceed into the intersection anyhow, you might be right, but maybe dead right, if the collision kills you.

Don't be dead right. Don't let an ideology blind you to appropriate behavior. We're all on the same side here. Some folks have been around long enough to learn how things work around here.

A wise person would take this into consideration and perhaps put pride aside for a moment.

One last thing a wise friend told me: "doing the right thing... at the wrong time can be the same as doing the wrong thing."