Open Carry Idiots

[caverjamie]

That's not who we are worried about. Not everyone is polarized on this issue, like most issues, and swing voters and undecideds make a difference. PLUS, how you are perceived affects the younger generation growing up, and successfully getting youngsters into the shooting sports and carrying is the best assurance we have that gun ownership will continue to be legal and mainstream.

Look, its legal for me to carry an axe with me. No license required, even. Its my right. However, if you are eating out and I walk in dressed like Tubs up there, but with an axe, and lean the axe against my table, how does that affect your dining experience? You'll rightfully be distracted and have to pay attention to me because I'm a stranger with a freaking axe. Our social mores do not include axes in restaurants, I am unusual, I am saying "I don't care about your social norms", and I am armed with a deadly weapon. No one here is just going to ignore me, and if you say you will, turn in your Situational Awareness card and go sit in the corner and color before you get hurt. Now because our society also doesn't allow staring unless you want to challenge the person, you're now stuck in the uncomfortable position of having to watch axe-guy without seeming to. If anyone asks about why I have an axe, I'll "educate" them. Enjoying dinner?

Now, a few days later you are asked if you support a new city ordinance that would prohibit axes, hatchets, and splitting mauls in private businesses without a bonified job requirement to carry it there. How are you perceptions colored?

Stop trying to insert a rational argument into an emotional issue.

But seriously, someone who thinks there is nothing strange about carrying an AR-15 into a restaraunt and leaning it up against your table while you eat is not going to think (or admit) there is anything wrong with doing that with an axe. It's my right, shall not be infringed, etc. I prefer to avoid scaring people needlessly when a pistol can be carried and do the job without making a "statement" - but to each his own.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So glad we have fourteen different threads on this topic to discuss it in.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Carrying axes isn't a right specifically enumerated in the constitutions of our state or country.

Note the 2nd amendment just says 'arms' and not 'firearms'.

 

[Smokepole]

I'm a little late to this conversation but I'm tending to agree with the point in the OP. I wish people could carry whatever they wanted, where ever they wanted. But the fact of the matter is, this is as much as a political issue as a Constitutional rights issue...and the people that find your behavior boorish, dangerous, stupid, offensive, or whatever get to vote too and their vote counts as much as yours and mine. We have to be aware of the political fight and that it can only be won by convincing people over to our side. Pissing people off or scaring them will not do it. Putting business owners in a spot where they have to choose a side seems to always set us back. I think history shows that exercising your rights without consideration of their impact on others gets us more nanny-state, behavior-dictating laws--and now we're seeing its effect on business owners....IMHO.

Abso-frickin-lutely! Well said and squarely nailed. I'll have to settle for smiley rep because the rules won't let me give GFGT rep at this time. I apparently have given him too much. REALLY?

The two guys are damned idiots if you ask me. It's generally a bad idea to put your long gun in a ready-up position in a private business. This is how we get unwanted attention, how we get businesses to not want us to carry.

The best way to go about carrying openly is this: keep it holstered, don't touch it, don't try to make it known you are carrying by talking or whatever. Let others see it for themselves that you are carrying and you aren't being loud or abrasive about it. Go about your business normally.

Well said. Just flippin' carry as you would NORMALLY and not be all up in your face about with the sheeple. Does anyone like it when the LGBTers are all up in our face. NO. Why would it be any different about any other hot button issue? Answer, it's not! As people we don't appreciate other people getting up in our face about almost anything and when someone does what is the normal reaction? To get irritated and push back and/or harden our current position. Human nature. I hear/read that all of the time here, those from our side that do EXACTLY that. And anyone that thinks that doesn't happen on the other side of this issue are fooling themselves. AND forgetting that the sheeple vote too. Just carry like normal and don't be an up-in -your-face jerk about it like the two foolish morons in the pic. Let the sheeple see that you carry and aren't out looking to be Billy Badazz. Just another person out that happens to carry.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Note the 2nd amendment just says 'arms' and not 'firearms'.

Good point. Either way, I wouldn't be voting for any ordinance or statute that restricts one's freedoms, but I realize I am in the minority in my beliefs.

I read the links posted, and this short guy is out there.

 

[MisterChester]

Abso-frickin-lutely! Well said and squarely nailed. I'll have to settle for smiley rep because the rules won't let me give GFGT rep at this time. I apparently have given him too much. REALLY?



Well said. Just flippin' carry as you would NORMALLY and not be all up in your face about with the sheeple. Does anyone like it when the LGBTers are all up in our face. NO. Why would it be any different about any other hot button issue? Answer, it's not! As people we don't appreciate other people getting up in our face about almost anything and when someone does what is the normal reaction? To get irritated and push back and/or harden our current position. Human nature. I hear/read that all of the time here, those from our side that do EXACTLY that. And anyone that thinks that doesn't happen on the other side of this issue are fooling themselves. AND forgetting that the sheeple vote too. Just carry like normal and don't be an up-in -your-face jerk about it like the two foolish morons in the pic. Let the sheeple see that you carry and aren't out looking to be Billy Badazz. Just another person out that happens to carry.

Yes! Not to mention, any anti-gunner or someone on the fence is going to be put even further against our cause when someone is shoving in their face as opposed to someone carrying and being respectful about it. +1. I'd rep you but the tyrants of INGO won't let me. Grabs pitchfork

 

[88GT]

What he deems right. He likes to spew his limitations and training requirements statements daily

He's definitely one of the "your rights are how I view them" kind of guy. He doesn't believe in personal property rights either.

I think what we need to ask ourselves is...
What is more important, being able to practice our full rights now or being able to progress our cause and the cause of our founders?

As if the two are mutually exclusive. Or even different at all.

Lets not mix "open carry" with openly carrying handguns. Openly carrying a long gun at starbucks is a lot different than openly carrying a handgun in starbucks. I think doing the former hurts our cause while doing the latter is not "in your face."

More importantly, let's not mix government infringement via legal restrictions with businesses who have always had, and should always have, the right to make a choice about customers carrying firearms. We aren't losing anything if one business decides to shut its doors to the carrying of firearms. I wouldn't care if every business in the state said "No Firearms." I still patronize businesses with that policy. Short of a metal detector, how will they know?

People are wasting their time with these OC rallies targeting businesses. But how can we condemn someone for exercising his rights?

OCing long guns in private businesses is not exercising your rights to the fullest. It is being an asshat. A Much more effective way to exercise your rights to the fullest would be to walk down the street or outside a govt building with long guns. These are places where political viewpoints and protest are meant to be displayed, and the public will understand that. The antis will still have to see our scary rifles and the rest of the public will see that we are not bad people.

This whole Starbucks and now chipotle thing is a perfect example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It is pretty clear that acting like a asshat will not get our side the victories we need. You want to keep losing to these stupid groups then keep up the asshattery.

I agree that there's nothing to be gained by petitioning businesses. But we don't lose anything either. Why do we have to hate on fellow RKBA activists? If nothing else, the antis are perfecting the divide part.

 

[Paul30]

Restrictions in our lives will be a constant unless the entire country reverts to anarchy. We will always have restrictions on our rights, like it or not that is just how it will always be. We can't legally drive over the speed limit, and we can't legally drill out an AR 15 to make it a machine gun unless you have a special license. Many times there is no law until an event shows a need for a law and it gets passed. If several of these events are in the news, then a couple mass shooters go in with a couple rifles and 100 round magazines smiling saying it is their right and then proceeds to start mowing down the customers it will get International attention, National attention, and State attention. The guy that shot up the theater was overlooked at first because someone thought it was a publicity stunt for the new movie. If I see a person carrying a long gun in a place it seems highly unreasonable my situational awareness will be pounding until I leave the area. The safety will be off, and I will not take my eyes off them until I am convinced I am no longer at risk. The reason there is no law currently against it is because it has not been passed, yet. Enough bad press, and one bad shooting and there will be a public discussion about passing a law and it very well might pass. If you think the Bill of Rights will keep it from passing, look at the other 49 states and think again. It is highly unusual behavior for someone to carry a long gun into a business. I know there are several arguments, he has a threat against him and only owns the one gun, etc. If the above situation happens, those reasons will not stop our legislators from steam rolling a law into action. Also when a law is finally passed, it many times is far more reaching than it needs to be. In 1934 a law was passed to tax (backdoor register) machine guns. Although silencers were in no way a problem at the time, they threw them into the same law because they thought since people were hungry in the depression, they might abuse them to shoot game. If it goes south, it is very possible they could write a new law to state the no weapons signs on businesses do have the weight of law, and it will likely mean handguns with LTCH license are not exempt. We need to be careful trying to push for change, it might not change the way we want it to.

I also have to wonder where you cross the line of "brandishing a weapon". If you have a handgun holstered, you are not touching it with your hands in a way that could be considered brandishing. The two guys posing one has his at the ready, with the trigger finger to the side. I don't know where the line is, but I would hate to be in the position of defending myself in court if someone had a picture of me holding a gun like they are and a witness saying we had a disagreement and I was brandishing a weapon. It would only take one completely anti gun person to fake a disagreement for their cause and it would be very expensive, and possibly an opportunity to lose your freedom, and right to even own a firearm. Remember the jury will decide the case, and the facts will be you were carrying a loaded long rifle in a store and someone said you threatened them holding a weapon in your hands.

 

[nakinate]

Restrictions in our lives will be a constant unless the entire country reverts to anarchy. We will always have restrictions on our rights, like it or not that is just how it will always be. We can't legally drive over the speed limit, and we can't legally drill out an AR 15 to make it a machine gun unless you have a special license. Many times there is no law until an event shows a need for a law and it gets passed. If several of these events are in the news, then a couple mass shooters go in with a couple rifles and 100 round magazines smiling saying it is their right and then proceeds to start mowing down the customers it will get International attention, National attention, and State attention. The guy that shot up the theater was overlooked at first because someone thought it was a publicity stunt for the new movie. If I see a person carrying a long gun in a place it seems highly unreasonable my situational awareness will be pounding until I leave the area. The safety will be off, and I will not take my eyes off them until I am convinced I am no longer at risk. The reason there is no law currently against it is because it has not been passed, yet. Enough bad press, and one bad shooting and there will be a public discussion about passing a law and it very well might pass. If you think the Bill of Rights will keep it from passing, look at the other 49 states and think again. It is highly unusual behavior for someone to carry a long gun into a business. I know there are several arguments, he has a threat against him and only owns the one gun, etc. If the above situation happens, those reasons will not stop our legislators from steam rolling a law into action. Also when a law is finally passed, it many times is far more reaching than it needs to be. In 1934 a law was passed to tax (backdoor register) machine guns. Although silencers were in no way a problem at the time, they threw them into the same law because they thought since people were hungry in the depression, they might abuse them to shoot game. If it goes south, it is very possible they could write a new law to state the no weapons signs on businesses do have the weight of law, and it will likely mean handguns with LTCH license are not exempt. We need to be careful trying to push for change, it might not change the way we want it to.

I also have to wonder where you cross the line of "brandishing a weapon". If you have a handgun holstered, you are not touching it with your hands in a way that could be considered brandishing. The two guys posing one has his at the ready, with the trigger finger to the side. I don't know where the line is, but I would hate to be in the position of defending myself in court if someone had a picture of me holding a gun like they are and a witness saying we had a disagreement and I was brandishing a weapon. It would only take one completely anti gun person to fake a disagreement for their cause and it would be very expensive, and possibly an opportunity to lose your freedom, and right to even own a firearm. Remember the jury will decide the case, and the facts will be you were carrying a loaded long rifle in a store and someone said you threatened them holding a weapon in your hands.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure there are no brandishing laws in Indiana. Other states, perhaps, but not here.

 

[femurphy77]

So the solution to the sheeple opposition to carrying firearm is to do it only on terms which they accept?

I look at it like teaching somebody to swim, if you throw them in the deep end they'll either sink or swim. Most people will panic and go straight to the bottom. Similar with the open carry of weapons, a pistol on the hip will most likely go unnoticed and by the time they see it they "may" realize that "hey this guys been sitting here for an hour or so eating without killing anyone so maybe it's ok". Whereas when they see someone walk in carrying a long gun their first thought is Columbine, Newtown, Colorado Springs etc. So help them out in the shallow end and they may one day swim on their own. Or in the case of Wattsberg hopefully go down like the Titanic.

Personally I see zero reason to carry long guns into any restaurant, variety store etc. even as a learning experience for the other patrons of the strore. Especially when the "teachers" present themselves as well as the two idiots in Chipotle.

YMMV

 

[brotherbill3]

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure there are no brandishing laws in Indiana. Other states, perhaps, but not here.

Texas is one. that is where this occured. Even in a holster visible is disorderly conduct, i believe, unless it is cap and ball pre-1899 or replica.

They weren't targeting Chipotle - they went there after a rally / OC Walk -
It appears (seen in article somewhere, I've only read 6 or 8 about this) - that they asked the manager before they went it to eat.
There are other pictures w/ more folks not just the two common one's that have become the face of this incident.
They are just the "most Call of Duty wanna-be's" of the bunch.

Also unlike the J. i.t. Box thing a few weeks ago - no police called or complaints there; at least not that I've seen at the store.
except maybe via a twitter account.
I could be off on this part though ... I need a billionaire to sponsor more research ...

 

[88GT]

Restrictions in our lives will be a constant unless the entire country reverts to anarchy.

Restrictions are your neighbor's way of telling you how to live your life. It isn't a dichotomy between full-blown anarchy and slavery to the state.

We will always have restrictions on our rights, like it or not that is just how it will always be.

Only because there are people who think they have the authority to do so. It is alarming, though, to see just how many are supposed to be on our side who have accepted the chains as an inevitability.

We can't legally drive over the speed limit,

Traffic laws are poor examples. They blur the line between self-interest behavior and conformity of use to minimize harm. And they are also limited to public-access roads. And have zero to do with private property.

and we can't legally drill out an AR 15 to make it a machine gun unless you have a special license

.
Wasn't always this way.

Many times there is no law until an event shows a need for a law and it gets passed.

That's a cop-out excuse. No law every stopped a crime and there hasn't been a new law on the books for ages now that didn't address whatever wrong someone was capable of doing to someone else. Moreover, the problem with this line of thinking is that it punishes people before a crime is ever committed. How does a limit of round count in a magazine solve any problem it was created to address?

If several of these events are in the news, then a couple mass shooters go in with a couple rifles and 100 round magazines smiling saying it is their right and then proceeds to start mowing down the customers it will get International attention, National attention, and State attention. The guy that shot up the theater was overlooked at first because someone thought it was a publicity stunt for the new movie.

Murder is illegal already. Would the guy who intends to murder a bunch of people really care that there was a law preventing him from using a particular firearm? You've fallen for the Big Lie.

If I see a person carrying a long gun in a place it seems highly unreasonable my situational awareness will be pounding until I leave the area. The safety will be off, and I will not take my eyes off them until I am convinced I am no longer at risk.

Your choice, but I don't see that carrying a firearm is sufficient on its own to warrant such a response. Of course, your definition of reasonable and mine are likely different. I don't believe that carrying a rifle should ever be unreasonable. And if more people did it, perhaps shootings in theaters would be less likely to happen.

The reason there is no law currently against it is because it has not been passed, yet.

A law against what? We're talking about private property rights here. Not government infringements.

Enough bad press, and one bad shooting and there will be a public discussion about passing a law and it very well might pass.

That's funny. Scores of violence and deaths at the hands of Muslims and I don't see a big concerted effort in this nation to prohibit the practice of that religion.

If you think the Bill of Rights will keep it from passing, look at the other 49 states and think again. It is highly unusual behavior for someone to carry a long gun into a business. I know there are several arguments, he has a threat against him and only owns the one gun, etc. If the above situation happens, those reasons will not stop our legislators from steam rolling a law into action.

Neither will you apparently. You've already accepted the law.

Also when a law is finally passed, it many times is far more reaching than it needs to be. In 1934 a law was passed to tax (backdoor register) machine guns. Although silencers were in no way a problem at the time, they threw them into the same law because they thought since people were hungry in the depression, they might abuse them to shoot game. If it goes south, it is very possible they could write a new law to state the no weapons signs on businesses do have the weight of law, and it will likely mean handguns with LTCH license are not exempt. We need to be careful trying to push for change, it might not change the way we want it to.

Yes, yes. The house slave argument. Though I feel it bears repeating that we aren't discussing legislation here. Just private property rights.

I also have to wonder where you cross the line of "brandishing a weapon". If you have a handgun holstered, you are not touching it with your hands in a way that could be considered brandishing. The two guys posing one has his at the ready, with the trigger finger to the side. I don't know where the line is, but I would hate to be in the position of defending myself in court if someone had a picture of me holding a gun like they are and a witness saying we had a disagreement and I was brandishing a weapon. It would only take one completely anti gun person to fake a disagreement for their cause and it would be very expensive, and possibly an opportunity to lose your freedom, and right to even own a firearm. Remember the jury will decide the case, and the facts will be you were carrying a loaded long rifle in a store and someone said you threatened them holding a weapon in your hands.

No brandishing statute in IC. And are you trying to create a connection between posing for a pic and a bona fide self defense action? It was a picture. Who poses for a pic just before a self defense action? And wouldn't the friend in the pic, the one who was supposed to be part of the argument, be a rebuttal to the claim that there was some argument that resulted in guns drawn?

 

[nakinate]

I do it funny that many people equate a legal right with a good idea when it comes to guns. It's my legal right to poop all over my house, but I don't do it because it is a bad idea...if you have a real purpose for carrying your long gun around aside from a demonstration, then good for you. If you're just trying to make a statement, then unfortunately, you're probably making the wrong statement.

Perception is more powerful than fact. You may THINK you're making a statement about how carrying an AR15 is no big deal, but the real statement being made is however people are perceiving you. Which is most likely as a crazy person. If you're cool with that then carry on, but you're not advancing our cause.

 

[88GT]

I look at it like teaching somebody to swim, if you throw them in the deep end they'll either sink or swim. Most people will panic and go straight to the bottom. Similar with the open carry of weapons, a pistol on the hip will most likely go unnoticed and by the time they see it they "may" realize that "hey this guys been sitting here for an hour or so eating without killing anyone so maybe it's ok". Whereas when they see someone walk in carrying a long gun their first thought is Columbine, Newtown, Colorado Springs etc. So help them out in the shallow end and they may one day swim on their own. Or in the case of Wattsberg hopefully go down like the Titanic.

Personally I see zero reason to carry long guns into any restaurant, variety store etc. even as a learning experience for the other patrons of the strore. Especially when the "teachers" present themselves as well as the two idiots in Chipotle.

YMMV

Not much disagreement from me on principle. But the problem is that there's hardly ever a deep end to the pool. And if some people in this thread had their way, it would always be that way. I am not supporting these guys based on their intent. I think it's stupid. It's a private business and I don't support attempting to sway policy of a businesses with such shows. However, I am not going to condemn them for exercising their rights on the ludicrous, whiny claim that it's hurting the cause. The 2nd is the only right that people want to restrict in order to save. I'd really like to know how that's going to happen.

 

[88GT]

I do it funny that many people equate a legal right with a good idea when it comes to guns. It's my legal right to poop all over my house, but I don't do it because it is a bad idea...if you have a real purpose for carrying your long gun around aside from a demonstration, then good for you. If you're just trying to make a statement, then unfortunately, you're probably making the wrong statement.

Perception is more powerful than fact. You may THINK you're making a statement about how carrying an AR15 is no big deal, but the real statement being made is however people are perceiving you. Which is most likely as a crazy person. If you're cool with that then carry on, but you're not advancing our cause.

And I find it equally funny that we are even discussing how the perception of exercising a right should matter to anybody else.

I don't have to have a purpose to exercise a right. I simply do because I can. That's what makes it a right.

 

[nakinate]

And I find it equally funny that we are even discussing how the perception of exercising a right should matter to anybody else.

I don't have to have a purpose to exercise a right. I simply do because I can. That's what makes it a right.

I agree that perception shouldn't matter, but to think that poor perception won't drive people who are otherwise neutral to infringe on our rights is naive. And if you read again, I never said that a demonstrator can't or shouldn't OC a rifle. I'm just saying that if you do so be prepared to be seen as a crazy person. If an OCer is okay with that then what do I care?

 

[nakinate]

The only reason I bring up perception is because the reason, ostensibly, that these people are OCing rifles is to advance a cause. If that is your stated purpose then shouldn't you care about how you are perceived? How can you advance a cause if you are turning people away from your agenda?

 

[88GT]

I agree that perception shouldn't matter, but to think that poor perception won't drive people who are otherwise neutral to infringe on our rights is naive. And if you read again, I never said that a demonstrator can't or shouldn't OC a rifle. I'm just saying that if you do so be prepared to be seen as a crazy person. If an OCer is okay with that then what do I care?

I don't think neutrality is hard-wired to default towards tyranny just because someone is behaving out of the norm. I would argue that someone willing to support infringements isn't really all that neutral, and certainly wasn't ever really a friend of liberty. To that end, what wouldn't push them towards supporting infringement?

You did say that a person shouldn't exercise a right without a good reason for doing it. Same thing in my book.

 

[iChokePeople]

I am not supporting these guys based on their intent. I think it's stupid. It's a private business and I don't support attempting to sway policy of a businesses with such shows. However, I am not going to condemn them for exercising their rights on the ludicrous, whiny claim that it's hurting the cause. The 2nd is the only right that people want to restrict in order to save. I'd really like to know how that's going to happen.

I'm not condemning them for exercising their rights, I just think they're complete jackwagons. If they'd gone in for lunch, minding their own business with their rifles safely slung, because they were hungry and happened to be carrying rifles, no problem for me. Once you unsling them and start putting on a show, in MY little book, you've crossed the line from conscientious gun-owner who exercises his rights to douchebag jackwagon, and labeling this kind of behavior as education or furthering the 2a cause is ridiculous.

Again, my opinion, YMMV.

ETA: To be clear, you have the RIGHT to be a douchebag jackwagon. Just don't expect my support and don't expect me to pretend that I don't care if it tends to reflect on the rest of us.

 

[nakinate]

I don't think neutrality is hard-wired to default towards tyranny just because someone is behaving out of the norm. I would argue that someone willing to support infringements isn't really all that neutral, and certainly wasn't ever really a friend of liberty. To that end, what wouldn't push them towards supporting infringement?

You did say that a person shouldn't exercise a right without a good reason for doing it. Same thing in my book.

Quote me saying that.