I can hardly wait for a Hawaii legislator to introduce an Open Carry bill. Preferably a Permitless Open Carry bill. And get it passed. Unfortunately, I won't be alive a million years from now... 

Puna guy,
You and I can make snowballs, that take months to melt, it
is not so in the rest of Hawaii, the snowball melts right away.
Thinking Oahu gun guys can have any impact is crazy.
They are too busy trying to snuggle up to HPD,
so they don't get hunted down and lose their privileges of
gun ownership.
Our HPD is even more useless., and nobody listens to our
representatives.
When and if Peruta gets decided things will happen, or not.

Puna guy,
You and I can make snowballs, that take months to melt, it
is not so in the rest of Hawaii, the snowball melts right away.
Thinking Oahu gun guys can have any impact is crazy.
They are too busy trying to snuggle up to HPD,
so they don't get hunted down and lose their privileges of
gun ownership.
Our HPD is even more useless., and nobody listens to our
representatives.
When and if Peruta gets decided things will happen, or not.

I figured that if we got 10,000 people to open carry protest in front of the legislature that the prison overcrowding situation would mandate the legislature to act (but they'd just create "early release" programs, NOT CCW or permitless open carry). The arms rights community can barely get 100 people (usually far far fewer) to send emails to the legislature when they are considering passing egregious arbitrary and capricious laws that would only impact law-abiding citizens and have no effect on crime whatsoever. Only, what, 6 six people showed up all day at the opening legislature day "demonstration"? I've put out "feelers" here (Big Island Hilo side) about organizing some kind of public demonstration against Hawaii's preposterously infringing laws (mostly CCW no-issue, but also "registration" in general, mag limits, etc.) and never really hear anything but from one or two people. That's why I said a million years.

In the meantime, speaking of open carry, the law geeks can now watch today's (June 8, 2016) Florida Supreme Court oral arguments in Norman v. State seeking to create permitless open carry there. (Note: "Wild West" only mentioned about 8 times...  )

http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=2364
(first 40 minutes is Norman v. State)

Re Peruta: 1. It won't be decided in our favor (and if not, an appeal to SCOTUS would be iffy given the current makeup of the court, and likely not granted cert anyway), 2. If the case is remanded back to district court it'll be another 5 years to get to another Ninth Circuit appeal decision. And then it'll be the same decision against us. Just sayin'... I have no idea what could be done that would have any influence on the firmly entrenched tyrants that run this place...

Sorry, but I don't think people open carrying their firearms will have any positive effect on gun rights. Open carry, tactically speaking, should be limited to very few situations.

Sorry, but I don't think people open carrying their firearms will have any positive effect on gun rights. Open carry, tactically speaking, should be limited to very few situations.

Everytime I see a cop, I make up a plan to survive.  I'm not afraid of open carry.
I'm afraid of badges that have a license to kill, without any possibility of them
suffering for bad decisions.

Tactical?  I would rather see cops off duty disarmed like the rest of us.
Politicians also.  That would be a powerful message. 

Sorry, but I don't think people open carrying their firearms will have any positive effect on gun rights. Open carry, tactically speaking, should be limited to very few situations.

Yeah, the only thing that "works", as we see here in Hawaii, is to "compromise" our rights away incrementally, where people seem to think that if the really really really egregious, arbitrary and capricious anti-arms bills are defeated, it's a "victory" because only the really really egregious, arbitrary and capricious anti-arms bills managaed to pass (usually almost unanimously). Yeah, we wouldn't want anyone here in Hawaii to get upset about people carrying openly, that would definitely "hurt" the cause. (I'm not sure how... you mean the "infringing" bills would get 99% of the votes in the legislature instead of only 92% like now? I wouldn't want that to happen!)

By the way, I wrote both Senators Slom and Gabbard both last year and this year asking them to introduce and sponsor both "permitless carry" and "open carry" bills, and neither responded, and obviously did not introduce such bills. What they did introduce were "shall issue" CCW bills that included high costs, training, bureaucratic oversight, and long lists of "prohibited places" where carry would not be allowed. So, yeah, open carry would definitely ruin the sterling program we've got going on here to protect our arms rights. 

Sorry, but I don't think people open carrying their firearms will have any positive effect on gun rights. Open carry, tactically speaking, should be limited to very few situations.

Such as when living in a free country?

Open carry is an excellent deterrent for all manner of crimes.

If there are any crazies around, they would probably be eliminated by natural selection within a year or two, leaving only the law abiding and polite people.

Everytime I see a cop, I make up a plan to survive.  I'm not afraid of open carry.
I'm afraid of badges that have a license to kill, without any possibility of them
suffering for bad decisions.

Tactical?  I would rather see cops off duty disarmed like the rest of us.
Politicians also.  That would be a powerful message.

What many police in America fail to understand is that once all the citizens are disarmed, they (the police) will be too.

It will be like in the UK and I think Australia as well.

You have the option of calling for "Armed Police" reinforcements but only afterwards. You will NOT be armed when walking your beat, or going to check up on things. No guns in your police car. No shotgun in the trunk. No bladed weapons either, just a baton.

(Of course, you can still tactically and loudly announce to the criminal that it is illegal for them to be armed).

And when the police retire or get laid off, they will become disarmed citizens the rest of their lives.

The only way to keep the guns around for law abiding people is to maintain the gun culture of America so it is an everyday thing.

Such as when living in a free country?

Open carry is an excellent deterrent for all manner of crimes.

If there are any crazies around, they would probably be eliminated by natural selection within a year or two, leaving only the law abiding and polite people.

That's one way to think about it.  If a bad guy knows you're armed, he/she/it may choose someone else to target, like someone who is unarmed (or appears to be unarmed).  However, openly carrying a firearm could also make that person a target as well. 

I have a bunch of good friends who live in Texas where open carry became legal earlier this year.  There are lots of articles for and against.  I have yet to ask them what their personal experiences are, but I believe all/most of them carry concealed.  Well, one is a cop just outside of Houston and even he carries concealed when off duty.

I think there will be a period of adjustment, until everyone gets used to everyone open carry. Then it will be fine.

I actually support open carry more than concealed carry. Concealed carry, the perp might find out too late that he targeted an armed person.

Open carry, the perp won't even initiate the crime, and end up being frustrated, and have to find a job.

1) I think there will be a period of adjustment, until everyone gets used to everyone open carry. Then it will be fine.

2) I actually support open carry more than concealed carry. Concealed carry, the perp might find out too late that he targeted an armed person.

3) Open carry, the perp won't even initiate the crime, and end up being frustrated, and have to find a job.

1) I believe that's pretty much what folks in Texas have noticed since their laws changed.  I've heard feedback that initially, restaurants and certain business were posting some signs that said open carry wasn't permitted on the premises.  I think something about that's how the law was written, where businesses could post code on the entrance that signifies no carry allowed.  That gradually, many businesses removed that restriction.  Kind of knee jerk reaction and panic at first over unknowns and then as people found out that nothing really changed at least in terms of increase in crime after open carry, then things sort of seemed to return to "normal". 

2) I support concealed carry over open carry for the reason that the subject will not know who is or isn't armed.  They won't know.  I would at least have the element of surprise.  Or they might not care to be frank. In the that case, they are going to do whatever anyways.  If one is going to open carry, it is my opinion that they had better train and be prepared for stuff like going hands on and retaining their firearm.  That said, I generally think most subjects/perps would tend to pick an easier target, but I would still rather not advertise that I am armed.  If they find out "too late" that they picked an armed person, then that's on them. 

3) Find a job!   

I know this is a public forum.
I won't violate any laws,
but this ruling just painted a target
on the back of every cop in Hawaii
and California.  You wear your
body armor on the front side.
I got your back. Be safe!

Such as when living in a free country?

Open carry is an excellent deterrent for all manner of crimes.

If there are any crazies around, they would probably be eliminated by natural selection within a year or two, leaving only the law abiding and polite people.

Open carry makes you a target. Sure it will deter some, but for others who have made their minds to commit the crime, they are just going to shoot at you first. It also makes you a target for someone wanting to steal your gun because they know you have it but you have no idea they are coming.

Open carry has a faster draw but concealed carry has the element of surprise. If I were already known to be a target, such as a cop, armored car driver, security guard, etc. then open carry makes sense, otherwise I would take the element of surprise over that extra half second needed to lift the shirt before the draw.

Now as for the deterrent factor I understand the line of reasoning but is there any proof open carry is a deterrent?

Open carry makes you a target. Sure it will deter some, but for others who have made their minds to commit the crime, they are just going to shoot at you first. It also makes you a target for someone wanting to steal your gun because they know you have it but you have no idea they are coming.

Open carry has a faster draw but concealed carry has the element of surprise. If I were already known to be a target, such as a cop, armored car driver, security guard, etc. then open carry makes sense, otherwise I would take the element of surprise over that extra half second needed to lift the shirt before the draw.

Now as for the deterrent factor I understand the line of reasoning but is there any proof open carry is a deterrent?

Is there any proof of anything at all you claim in your first two paragraphs? Funny (peculiar funny, not humorous funny) that you'd ask for proof from someone else when you just blurt out uncorroborated hypotheses/cliches.

Open carry makes you a target. Sure it will deter some, but for others who have made their minds to commit the crime, they are just going to shoot at you first. It also makes you a target for someone wanting to steal your gun because they know you have it but you have no idea they are coming.

Open carry has a faster draw but concealed carry has the element of surprise. If I were already known to be a target, such as a cop, armored car driver, security guard, etc. then open carry makes sense, otherwise I would take the element of surprise over that extra half second needed to lift the shirt before the draw.

Now as for the deterrent factor I understand the line of reasoning but is there any proof open carry is a deterrent?

Have you notified HPD that all their uniformed officers are in danger?  Better let them know that carrying a gun visibly makes them all targets!!

Have you notified HPD that all their uniformed officers are in danger?  Better let them know that carrying a gun visibly makes them all targets!!

Ok. That's a different subject. Let's not get into training, but open carry for LE officers is way different from open carry for the general public.

Ok. That's a different subject. Let's not get into training, but open carry for LE officers is way different from open carry for the general public.

You seem to be saying "I don't want to talk about it or explain it, but just trust my official pronouncement unsupported by any argument and/or evidence, it's "different" and "it's dangerous".

You seem to be saying "I don't want to talk about it or explain it, but just trust my official pronouncement unsupported by any argument and/or evidence, it's "different" and "it's dangerous".

I guess I should have read EEF's post that was being replied to closer before adding my own reply.  Changes my impression of the other poster's reply. That said...

I suppose the overall risks of open carry for an LEO is the same as for as any armed citizen. I was just sharing my opinion (not any sort of official proclamation or anything) that LEO are more aware of the risks and consequences. Also that there will be many armed citizens who will/would open carry "just because they can" and not be as aware of the risks. Their choice to do so in any case. I'm not going to tell anyone what they can and can't do, not that anyone would listen anyways.

Ok. That's a different subject. Let's not get into training, but open carry for LE officers is way different from open carry for the general public.

I only see two differences:

1.  Cops are already targets by wearing the uniform.  The gun doesn't make them more of a target, but it has a deterrent effect -- same effect as with non-LEO open carriers.

2.  Cops are allowed to carry standard capacity mags, where slaves of the state are limited to 10 rds  or less.

I watched half a dozen students from Front Sight Training walk into the first gas station between the site and LV where I stopped each day.  Each was open carrying their training pistol.  No customers or employees freaked or called 911.  Most didn't even give them or their guns a second glance. 

I would prefer carrying concealed assuming it's legal, but a group of customers open carrying is NOT going to be targeted for execution at the start of a hold up.  4-6 people with holstered weapons would deter most criminals and send them looking for a softer target to rob.  So, if you want to talk tactical advantages of concealed carry, maybe you should also consider tactics that work when open carrying like carrying as a group or family?

I only see two differences:

1.  Cops are already targets by wearing the uniform.  The gun doesn't make them more of a target, but it has a deterrent effect -- same effect as with non-LEO open carriers.

2.  Cops are allowed to carry standard capacity mags, where slaves of the state are limited to 10 rds  or less.

I watched half a dozen students from Front Sight Training walk into the first gas station between the site and LV where I stopped each day.  Each was open carrying their training pistol.  No customers or employees freaked or called 911.  Most didn't even give them or their guns a second glance. 

I would prefer carrying concealed assuming it's legal, but a group of customers open carrying is NOT going to be targeted for execution at the start of a hold up.  4-6 people with holstered weapons would deter most criminals and send them looking for a softer target to rob.  So, if you want to talk tactical advantages of concealed carry, maybe you should also consider tactics that work when open carrying like carrying as a group or family?

1) Yeah.  I'm with you there.  I do think the gun can be effective as a deterrent in both cases. 

2) Didn't really consider that aspect.  I was just considering open carry or unarmed.  Glock 17 standard cap is 17 and CZs are 17 and 18, where I have 10 rounders. 

Like the Texas example that I shared above, I think once people get over the initial knee jerk reaction, then things would settle down.  Or at least I would hope.  That said, guns are almost a way of life in Texas, so the "reaction" curve would be much steeper here where I can't get into the elevator with my rifle bag without having another resident give me a shocked look that I am headed to the range with a firearm. 

From the deterrent stand point, I would agree/think that criminals would choose a softer target if they saw a bunch of armed individuals.  I was more thinking along the lines of the individual who is open carrying could be targeted for people wanting the gun.  I remember when I first carried concealed (in a different state), I felt super self conscious about it, even if it was concealed. 

Never really considered tactics of open carrying in a group or with family.  I've slowly gotten other family members to enjoy shooting, but only my dad and I have guns in my immediate family.  I have other relatives that have guns, but don't really shoot.  I try to share my passion for shooting with friends and family when I can, but I would say maybe a few friends would be interested in carrying, the rest likely either not interested to irrationally afraid of guns.