I have meant to post about this issue (open carry and its pertinence to long gun carry) for quite some time, but held it in abeyance during the heat of the legislative process this session, which is now over (save the signing of bills by Ige). Mr. Nichols posted about this today (see link below) as it pertains to some current lawsuits.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard all the "arguments" against open carry vs. concealed carry... almost all anecdotal accounts and/or so rare that they are virtually inconsequentially insignificant (about as common as the "licensed concealed carrier commits crime with gun" anecdotes used as arguments against concealed carry... i.e. "wild west", "everyone gets shot", etc.), but whatever. The point is that if somehow the concealed carry advocates get their way and the state decides to recognize the "privilege" of concealed carry and deny the "right" of open carry (don't blame me, blame the NRA and SAF that litigated Peruta and Richards in the Ninth Circuit) then people will be prevented from bearing long arms in public because long arms are not concealable. Now why would anyone want that to be the case? All of you who either demand concealed carry rather than open carry and/or abhor open carry for whatever reasons, why would you restrict others from bearing long guns in public... just because you don't like it or think it "inadvisable"? Sounds virtually identical to the people who don't want you to carry any short arms concealed in public because "public safety".

Unrestricted open carry... the only way to go. As for all the people that "will be scared" when they see a gun? Fuck them.


https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/posts/2164972403585571?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBfZdOS3dp96wtfyzurYrR1L1IZHmGlouSLZYlbk1hU9QSQbBHUcRpF3tb7Umnmhs8ABqHdBMS-YkcJd-5kTZ4oQ0Uf71kV_eTXpDRV_jNjMUQXJm9UgCvtyeTLOjUOYzG6qYtpCZdbejn2AtnrNM7QaSjkoqVmmO-9rishRRruu_IJuFfybx59UYdcGKJ70aADOOdbrJTGaHWZIwDRggPw7hHP28dtiP8t83kdBs4FpnAWqVaTMpJjSrYG18SlY_kJ3HUjJ2QIHrv0odaerj7hLHf3tfx0WbZgX1CrU-TO5IDD0vYTdJd4SyaA8cvirfh4IhayGRuFv2NJ4OduRRpEPA&__tn__=K-R

I have meant to post about this issue (open carry and its pertinence to long gun carry) for quite some time, but held it in abeyance during the heat of the legislative process this session, which is now over (save the signing of bills by Ige). Mr. Nichols posted about this today (see link below) as it pertains to some current lawsuits.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard all the "arguments" against open carry vs. concealed carry... almost all anecdotal accounts and/or so rare that they are virtually inconsequentially insignificant (about as common as the "licensed concealed carrier commits crime with gun" anecdotes used as arguments against concealed carry... i.e. "wild west", "everyone gets shot", etc.), but whatever. The point is that if somehow the concealed carry advocates get their way and the state decides to recognize the "privilege" of concealed carry and deny the "right" of open carry (don't blame me, blame the NRA and SAF that litigated Peruta and Richards in the Ninth Circuit) then people will be prevented from bearing long arms in public because long arms are not concealable. Now why would anyone want that to be the case? All of you who either demand concealed carry rather than open carry and/or abhor open carry for whatever reasons, why would you restrict others from bearing long guns in public... just because you don't like it or think it "inadvisable"? Sounds virtually identical to the people who don't want you to carry any short arms concealed in public because "public safety".

Unrestricted open carry... the only way to go. As for all the people that "will be scared" when they see a gun? Fuck them.


https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/posts/2164972403585571?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBfZdOS3dp96wtfyzurYrR1L1IZHmGlouSLZYlbk1hU9QSQbBHUcRpF3tb7Umnmhs8ABqHdBMS-YkcJd-5kTZ4oQ0Uf71kV_eTXpDRV_jNjMUQXJm9UgCvtyeTLOjUOYzG6qYtpCZdbejn2AtnrNM7QaSjkoqVmmO-9rishRRruu_IJuFfybx59UYdcGKJ70aADOOdbrJTGaHWZIwDRggPw7hHP28dtiP8t83kdBs4FpnAWqVaTMpJjSrYG18SlY_kJ3HUjJ2QIHrv0odaerj7hLHf3tfx0WbZgX1CrU-TO5IDD0vYTdJd4SyaA8cvirfh4IhayGRuFv2NJ4OduRRpEPA&__tn__=K-R

Long guns is a whole different ballgame to handguns, As it stands Hawaii does not have a mechanism to carry a long gun outside of the home and even when young wins that would be a whole different fight.

I do not oppose making open carry legal, constitutional carry all the way, I just think open carrying is stupid.  Weapons should be felt, not seen, and to me there isn't a single valid argument for open carry OVER concealed carry for the everyday guy/gal carrying for self defense. Armed guards open carrying obviously makes sense, whether they're public like in airports/schools or private guards at religious institutions.  I just don't understand why you would make the conscious decision to open carry a rifle or shotgun instead of carrying concealed and keeping your long gun in the trunk.

I do not oppose making open carry legal, constitutional carry all the way, I just think open carrying is stupid.  Weapons should be felt, not seen, and to me there isn't a single valid argument for open carry OVER concealed carry for the everyday guy/gal carrying for self defense. Armed guards open carrying obviously makes sense, whether they're public like in airports/schools or private guards at religious institutions.  I just don't understand why you would make the conscious decision to open carry a rifle or shotgun instead of carrying concealed and keeping your long gun in the trunk.

Why does it make sense for security guards to carry in the open but not everyday people ?

Why does it make sense for security guards to carry in the open but not everyday people ?

For the same reason it makes sense for uniformed police and military to open carry.  Why does it make sense to you to open carry instead of concealed carry?

Long guns is a whole different ballgame to handguns, As it stands Hawaii does not have a mechanism to carry a long gun outside of the home and even when young wins that would be a whole different fight.

My point is that it shouldn't be a "whole different ballgame" given the language of the Constitution, and the history and tradition of the both the actual bearing of firearms in this country and the legal precedents, virtually all of which recognize open carry as the right, and concealed carry as a privilege, and one generally looked down upon at that. And, that the bearing of long guns should have been part of the Young litigation. In most states open carry of long guns is legal without any permitting or licensing by any government agency, i.e. "constitutional carry". All the more reason it should have been challenged in Young.

I do not oppose making open carry legal, constitutional carry all the way, I just think open carrying is stupid.  Weapons should be felt, not seen, and to me there isn't a single valid argument for open carry OVER concealed carry for the everyday guy/gal carrying for self defense. Armed guards open carrying obviously makes sense, whether they're public like in airports/schools or private guards at religious institutions.  I just don't understand why you would make the conscious decision to open carry a rifle or shotgun instead of carrying concealed and keeping your long gun in the trunk.

I've seen a few OCing in Vegas.  I would assume that they're waiting for their CCW permit to come in. 

My friend who owns no guns is moving to Vegas next month.  He wants to OC.  I told him CCW is better but he doesn't believe me.  His thought is "well if the bad guy sees a gun on my hip, he won't mess with me".  I told him, or the bad guy sees the gun and waits until you're not paying attention and knocks you over the head with something knocking you out.  Then takes your shit.  Or draws on you and takes your shit.  You can't outdraw a gun already pointed at you.  And you're gonna burn out mentally if you're profiling in the red zone all day.

Hope he learns.

I do not oppose making open carry legal, constitutional carry all the way, I just think open carrying is stupid. Weapons should be felt, not seen, and to me there isn't a single valid argument for open carry OVER concealed carry for the everyday guy/gal carrying for self defense. Armed guards open carrying obviously makes sense, whether they're public like in airports/schools or private guards at religious institutions.  I just don't understand why you would make the conscious decision to open carry a rifle or shotgun instead of carrying concealed and keeping your long gun in the trunk.

Your statement is invalid. . .



 

First, there's the irony of your signature, which is all about rifles, and their significance, which includes no mention of handguns, at all...

I do not oppose making open carry legal, constitutional carry all the way,

So far, so good...

I just think open carrying is stupid. 

Oops. That didn't last long. How many times have I heard that? Why don't you list the reasons and evidence that lead to your conclusion that open carrying is stupid. Thanks.

Weapons should be felt, not seen,

You find that on a stone tablet in a cave in the middle east somewhere? Source?

and to me there isn't a single valid argument for open carry OVER concealed carry for the everyday guy/gal carrying for self defense.

Is there a single valid argument for concealed carry OVER open carry for the everyday guy/gal carrying for self-defense? What is it, or them?

Armed guards open carrying obviously makes sense,

What's so obvious about it? Details please. Why does what's obvious for armed guards become invalid when applied to ordinary citizens?

whether they're public like in airports/schools or private guards at religious institutions.  I just don't understand why you would make the conscious decision to open carry a rifle or shotgun instead of carrying concealed and keeping your long gun in the trunk.

Does the fact that you "don't understand" have any weight or bearing at all on the exercise of a constitutional right by other people? This is the same argument used by the people who want to deny you your ability to carry any firearm (or electric gun, etc.) in public... they "don't understand" why you need a gun to go to Target, therefore, you shouldn't be "allowed" to bear an arm when you go to Target. That makes perfect sense to them... they actually think that's an "argument" of a rational nature.

For the same reason it makes sense for uniformed police and military to open carry.  Why does it make sense to you to open carry instead of concealed carry?

For the same reason it makes sense for uniformed police and military to open carry instead of concealed carry.

At no point in my post did I argue that open carry shouldn't be legal or not allowed.....  Why are open carry advocates so sensitive?  Your post is titled "One Enormous Advantage of Open Carry" and no advantage is mentioned. 

At no point in my post did I argue that open carry shouldn't be legal or not allowed.....  Why are open carry advocates so sensitive?  Your post is titled "One Enormous Advantage of Open Carry" and no advantage is mentioned.

1. I never claimed that you ever "argue[d] that open carry shouldn't be legal or not allowed".

2. I did ask you a bunch of questions about the claims you made... all of which were completely 100% unsubstantiated by you, but rather just enunciated as if they were gospel or tautologically  true... which they aren't. Not even close. Many of the statements you make and words you use to denigrate open carry are eerily similar to the arguments and words used by the anti-concealed carry crowd.

3. Why are concealed carry advocates so sensitive?

4. Yeah, the first half of the first sentence of my original post contains "open carry and its pertinence to long gun carry", meaning, obviously as borne out by the rest of the post, that long guns cannot be carried concealed, and that as your signature, a quote from Jeff Cooper points out, rifles are the weapons of greatest significance for firearm use for some of the purposes in the minds of the Founders.

I have no studies to back up my stance on the matter, but for me this is why I prefer CCW over OC:

1) I'm not a scary looking guy, so OCing I feel would paint a target on me to get my stuff stolen and knocked out. Big, mean dudes don't get messed with as often.
2) With regard to the above, I can't be in the red zone all day.  Gonna get burned out.  But I do scan.
3) I do carry inside casinos (legal), so if OCing, then I would be forced to check my gun.  If an active shooter happens, I got no gun because it's checked.  Compared to OC, no one has ever noticed.
4) Similar to #2 above, this is why I appendix carry.  I'm playing at the tables and always leaning forward.  If I carried at 3,4,5 oclock, my gun would be wide open to everyone.  And when CCWing, printing big time.  With appendix, no one can see any printing.  Or walking the crowded strip shoulder to shoulder with people.  I have more retention at appendix vs. 4 oclock.

But if I did go hiking, I would OC my AR because there may be bigger animals that a 9mm won't stop.

#1 - The type of carry should be left to the judgement of the gun owner, not the gov't and especially not to people whose lives are not impacted by someone else's decision. "Pro-choice" should apply to everything, not just killing your own fetus.

#2 - Open carry has the OBVIOUS benefit of making drawing easier and faster. Concealed carry requires clothing over the firearm, oftentimes tucked into the pants. Practice improves speed, but nothing compares to having an unobstructed path to the weapon.  Don't agree? USPSA matches and handgun training schools don't allow IWB concealed carry holsters for OBVIOUS reasons.

#3 - Another OBVIOUS benefit to open carry is the concern by Cops that they can't tell if you're armed if you're concealing a firearm. If I were a Cop, I'd be less apprehensive of a displayed & holstered firearm than the potential risk that someone I'm interacting with might be armed without my knowing. Some states require notification you're armed whenever LE makes contact with you. From a safety perspective, both yours and the officers', I think transparency (OC & notification of CC) helps LE see you as a law abiding, armed citizen and not someone to fear.

#4 - You can "what about" over what some criminal might do all day, but fact is: if someone is looking for a victim, they routinely look for a weaker person who is less capable of fighting back. Softer targets will be more appealing than someone who seems prepared for violence. Having a firearm openly displayed is like having a loud yappy dog at home. It's not a guaranteed deterrent, but the average crook will pass on you/your home for an easier victim.

#5 - Sometimes the occasion, destination or activity dictates what makes more sense. I'd rather open carry camping or on a long (mainland) road trip. More comfortable, easier to get at, and not visible while inside the vehicle. I can throw a jacket or vest on if I wish to conceal temporarily getting gas or stopping to eat.  Going to a nice, dressy event such as a dinner party, concealed would be more appropriate. My choice -- not the legislature's.

#6 - As for the ability to carry rifles openly for self defense, I'm personally against it for myself. Unless it's in a rifle case or scabbard of some sort, it's different than having a holstered handgun. To me, someone with hands on a weapon makes me less comfortable than someone carrying one in a holster.  A sling is not the same as a holster.  You still have to handle the weapon to sling it on you, adjust it or remove it for sitting.  If you have to remove it, you just lost one of the OBVIOUS benefits of wearing a firearm -- constant control.

Nothing OBVIOUSLY bad about carrying a rifle slung on your back.  Just more opportunity for someone to accidentally discharge the rifle as they transition from walking to sitting to standing, etc. (IMHO).  if we are looking to minimize risks, we have to reduce any potential risks we may present to those around us. Reducing risks is what prompts us to carry in the first place -- risks posed by bad/mentally ill people.

The idea that one-size-fits-all is dangerous. People can decide for themselves. Options are a good thing -- OBVIOUSLY.

No dog in this fight just stirring up sh!t and boosting my post count to full member threshold...

The second say the right to keep and bear arms, nothing about how, open, concealed or what type of weapon. As far as I’m concerned the government needs to keep out of our shit. I’m for carry any way I want nor do I need anyone’s permission.....

There's advantages to both methods of carry, and it's situational dependent too.

Open Carry Pros:
usually allows you to carry larger handguns which you can shoot better and are more powerful
may be more comfortable to carry.
visual warning for bad people to stay away.
People may be more polite to you.
Great for guarding or protecting stuff

Concealed Carry Pros:
Don't need to stay in perpetual  code orange zone situational awareness...enjoy life.
If you somehow miss the "no guns allowed" sign on the door, then no problem.
People aren't intimidated by you.
Less pressure to get involved in an incident if you don't want to.
in an active shooter situation, you're observed to be just a regular guy.
Less likely to be robbed or killed for your gun.

Neutral:
It's even when it comes to the draw.  Open carry usually requires a level II or III holster which takes a split second longer to draw.  Concealed carry can be quick to draw depending on clothing and location.  Both require a lot of practice to be proficient, safe, and quick.

Open carrying longguns has it's uses.  Like protecting your neighborhood  or property after a natural disaster.  Situational awareness has to be even higher than while open carrying a handgun since your long gun is usually slung and someone can grab it behind your back or jack you for it.  Also takes a bit longer to deploy..  Open carrying a longgun sucks in real life.  Where do you put it when sitting down to eat and use the restroom?  You have to secure the sling when you walk around.  It's uncomfortable to have on you all day.

#1 - The type of carry should be left to the judgement of the gun owner, not the gov't and especially not to people whose lives are not impacted by someone else's decision. "Pro-choice" should apply to everything, not just killing your own fetus.

#2 - Open carry has the OBVIOUS benefit of making drawing easier and faster. Concealed carry requires clothing over the firearm, oftentimes tucked into the pants. Practice improves speed, but nothing compares to having an unobstructed path to the weapon.  Don't agree? USPSA matches and handgun training schools don't allow IWB concealed carry holsters for OBVIOUS reasons.

#3 - Another OBVIOUS benefit to open carry is the concern by Cops that they can't tell if you're armed if you're concealing a firearm. If I were a Cop, I'd be less apprehensive of a displayed & holstered firearm than the potential risk that someone I'm interacting with might be armed without my knowing. Some states require notification you're armed whenever LE makes contact with you. From a safety perspective, both yours and the officers', I think transparency (OC & notification of CC) helps LE see you as a law abiding, armed citizen and not someone to fear.

#4 - You can "what about" over what some criminal might do all day, but fact is: if someone is looking for a victim, they routinely look for a weaker person who is less capable of fighting back. Softer targets will be more appealing than someone who seems prepared for violence. Having a firearm openly displayed is like having a loud yappy dog at home. It's not a guaranteed deterrent, but the average crook will pass on you/your home for an easier victim.

#5 - Sometimes the occasion, destination or activity dictates what makes more sense. I'd rather open carry camping or on a long (mainland) road trip. More comfortable, easier to get at, and not visible while inside the vehicle. I can throw a jacket or vest on if I wish to conceal temporarily getting gas or stopping to eat.  Going to a nice, dressy event such as a dinner party, concealed would be more appropriate. My choice -- not the legislature's.

#6 - As for the ability to carry rifles openly for self defense, I'm personally against it for myself. Unless it's in a rifle case or scabbard of some sort, it's different than having a holstered handgun. To me, someone with hands on a weapon makes me less comfortable than someone carrying one in a holster.  A sling is not the same as a holster.  You still have to handle the weapon to sling it on you, adjust it or remove it for sitting.  If you have to remove it, you just lost one of the OBVIOUS benefits of wearing a firearm -- constant control.

Nothing OBVIOUSLY bad about carrying a rifle slung on your back.  Just more opportunity for someone to accidentally discharge the rifle as they transition from walking to sitting to standing, etc. (IMHO).  if we are looking to minimize risks, we have to reduce any potential risks we may present to those around us. Reducing risks is what prompts us to carry in the first place -- risks posed by bad/mentally ill people.

The idea that one-size-fits-all is dangerous. People can decide for themselves. Options are a good thing -- OBVIOUSLY.

I used to live in a state that allowed both open and concealed( with a shall issue license carry).
For concealed I preferred small frame PPK or Astra 9MM pistol.  I had a rifle rack in my truck.
it had fishing poles, an SKS, and a shotgun.
Most guys here don't have any idea what an SKS  type 56 is.
Hawaiians are generally too stupid to deal deal with freedom, so they would soil themselves
if they knew millions of mainland and AK people live this way, and we don't
go into gun free zones and kill kids.
To Hawaiian Democrats just keep passing laws, it only makes you safer from
the scary things under your bed or in your head.

I used to live in a state that allowed both open and concealed( with a shall issue license carry).
For concealed I preferred small frame PPK or Astra 9MM pistol.  I had a rifle rack in my truck.
it had fishing poles, an SKS, and a shotgun.
Most guys here don't have any idea what an SKS  type 56 is.
Hawaiians are generally too stupid to deal deal with freedom, so they would soil themselves
if they knew millions of mainland and AK people live this way, and we don't
go into gun free zones and kill kids.
To Hawaiian Democrats just keep passing laws, it only makes you safer from
the scary things under your bed or in your head.

Sweet! 

The second say the right to keep and bear arms, nothing about how, open, concealed or what type of weapon. As far as I’m concerned the government needs to keep out of our shit. I’m for carry any way I want nor do I need anyone’s permission.....

Then there's the real world, where the fact is the government is in ALL our shit, all the time, everywhere. If you chose to exercise your natural, fundamental, individual, enumerated, constitutionally-protected civil right to bear arms openly outside your home in a "public" place, you will be subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment... if you are not killed outright because a  cop "felt" he was "in danger" just observing you open carrying a firearm in a holster. Don't get me wrong, I suspect I hate all this fucking bullshit as much as anyone, but we are where we are, and we need to have strategies that will get us a far as possible as quickly as possible (otherwise I'll be dead). Open carry will have more of an effect on the public psyche, especially here in Hawaii, and we should have had open carry of long arms part of the Young suit. We need to melt as many snowflakes as possible as quickly as possible. Now I'm dreaming...