A Problem with Open Carry Laws

[cologal]

Yesterday my hometown suffered yet another senseless gun tragedy. In this case 4 people were killed including the shooter. I will post a link to a report by the Denver Post but paste a paragraph included in the report because this tragedy might have been avoided.

Bettis said she recognized the gunman as her neighbor — whom she didn't know by name — and that before the initial slaying she saw him roaming outside with a rifle. She called 911 to report the man, but a dispatcher explained that Colorado has an open carry law that allows public handling of firearms.

The rights of ordinary citizens are being pushed aside by the gun lobby! If the police had responded to this call 3 innocent victims might have been spared.

Colorado Springs gunman, victims ID'd; police quickly confronted, shot suspect - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29059452/colorado-springs-police-confronted-shot-gunman-minutes)

[goodtimesintv]

Guns do not load, aim and fire themselves. The typical hunter or other gun carrier does not commit mass murder.

This would be a better avenue to explore for the source of the problem, especially in Colorado:

Street drugs and schizophrenia

Overview: Use of street drugs (including LSD,methamphetamine,marijuana/hash/cannabis) and alcohol have been linked with significantly increased probability of developing psychosis and schizophrenia.

This link has been documented in over 30 different scientific studies (studies done mostly in the UK, Australia and Sweden) over the past 20 years. In one example, a study interviewed 50,000 members of the Swedish Army about their drug consumption and followed up with them later in life. Those who were heavy consumers of cannabis at age 18 were over 600% more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the next 15 years than those did not take it. (see diagram below). Experts estimate that between 8% and 13% of all schizophrenia cases are linked to marijuna / cannabis use during teen years.

Marijuana, Cannabis and Schizophrenia - Schizophrenia.com (http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html#)

[Miles42]

Another useless argument for more laws. Criminals do not let laws govern their lives, Never have. If laws prevented any crime the prisons would be empty.

[fred53]

Yesterday my hometown suffered yet another senseless gun tragedy. In this case 4 people were killed including the shooter. I will post a link to a report by the Denver Post but paste a paragraph included in the report because this tragedy might have been avoided.

Bettis said she recognized the gunman as her neighbor — whom she didn't know by name — and that before the initial slaying she saw him roaming outside with a rifle. She called 911 to report the man, but a dispatcher explained that Colorado has an open carry law that allows public handling of firearms.

The rights of ordinary citizens are being pushed aside by the gun lobby! If the police had responded to this call 3 innocent victims might have been spared.

Colorado Springs gunman, victims ID'd; police quickly confronted, shot suspect - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29059452/colorado-springs-police-confronted-shot-gunman-minutes)

should have mentioned the person with the rifle was acting in a threatening manner. If one person has a car and drives into a crowd and kills 5 people we do not outlaw driving in public.

You can not predict some killings by people who are nuts and if they decide they're going to do others extreme bodily harm and act normal till they commit the act it matters not what they use for a weapon. The fact is guns save more people than they harm.

[BobnBev]

I fault the dispatcher for not sending an officer to check it out. Open carry notwithstanding, the officer would have ID'd the man, and run him for wants and warrants, and checked the weapon for theft.:024:

[outlaw]

I fault the dispatcher for not sending an officer to check it out. Open carry notwithstanding, the officer would have ID'd the man, and run him for wants and warrants, and checked the weapon for theft.:024:

Unless the officer had probably cause (breaking a law, etc.), the person open carrying would not have to identify himself.

[gomoho]

Unless the officer had probably cause (breaking a law, etc.), the person open carrying would not have to identify himself.

I suspect if this shooter had murder on his mind an officer would have hopefully recognized some sort of bizarre behavior that may have stopped I
this heinous crime. I agree the dispatcher and the person reporting the man carrying the rifle failed miserably in their communication.

[Taltarzac725]

Yesterday my hometown suffered yet another senseless gun tragedy. In this case 4 people were killed including the shooter. I will post a link to a report by the Denver Post but paste a paragraph included in the report because this tragedy might have been avoided.

Bettis said she recognized the gunman as her neighbor — whom she didn't know by name — and that before the initial slaying she saw him roaming outside with a rifle. She called 911 to report the man, but a dispatcher explained that Colorado has an open carry law that allows public handling of firearms.

The rights of ordinary citizens are being pushed aside by the gun lobby! If the police had responded to this call 3 innocent victims might have been spared.

Colorado Springs gunman, victims ID'd; police quickly confronted, shot suspect - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29059452/colorado-springs-police-confronted-shot-gunman-minutes)

She should have said that he looked like he was getting ready to prey on people. I do not see any easy answers here but fewer guns accessible to the mentally ill would be some kind of a strategy. How you make these less accessible would vary from community-to-community. I would expect that more programs of various kinds in each community would help through the churches, libraries, YMCAs, YWCAs, schools, etc. Volunteer programs that emphasize more community involvement of people looking out for others. Make people with problems like this Colorado Springs man want to help others rather than hurt them. Add more gun safety programs as well. More involvement of the National Alliance on Mental Illness too so that people understand better about the problems involving those with various mental illnesses. Very few of the large number of people with some kind of recurring depression or more serious problems ever become violent. https://www.nami.org/ https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Infographics-Fact-Sheets

Giving people a reason to hope would help. Why linking depression to violent crime could be a red herring | Shirley Reynolds | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/26/depression-violent-crime-study)

I do have a problem with the NRA in not helping to curb the flow of weapons onto the streets of the US. Some of these weapons do not belong anywhere but in some armory or in the hands of the police/National Guard/US Army. If there are fewer weapons of this sort out there, then the criminals too would have a harder time getting them as would people with murder on their minds.

[outlaw]

She should have said that he looked like he was getting ready to prey on people. I do not see any easy answers here but fewer guns accessible to the mentally ill would be some kind of a strategy. How you make these less accessible would vary from community-to-community. I would expect that more programs of various kinds in each community would help through the churches, libraries, YMCAs, YWCAs, schools, etc. Volunteer programs that emphasize more community involvement of people looking out for others. Make people with problems like this Colorado Springs man want to help others rather than hurt them. Add more gun safety programs as well. More involvement of the National Alliance on Mental Illness too so that people understand better about the problems involving those with various mental illnesses. Very few of the large number of people with some kind of recurring depression or more serious problems ever become violent. https://www.nami.org/ https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Infographics-Fact-Sheets

Giving people a reason to hope would help. Why linking depression to violent crime could be a red herring | Shirley Reynolds | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/26/depression-violent-crime-study)

I do have a problem with the NRA in not helping to curb the flow of weapons onto the streets of the US. Some of these weapons do not belong anywhere but in some armory or in the hands of the police/National Guard/US Army. If there are fewer weapons of this sort out there, then the criminals too would have a harder time getting them as would people with murder on their minds.

Let's just lock up everyone. Then we know we got all the criminals off the streets.

[billethkid]

Yesterday my hometown suffered yet another senseless gun tragedy. In this case 4 people were killed including the shooter. I will post a link to a report by the Denver Post but paste a paragraph included in the report because this tragedy might have been avoided.

Bettis said she recognized the gunman as her neighbor — whom she didn't know by name — and that before the initial slaying she saw him roaming outside with a rifle. She called 911 to report the man, but a dispatcher explained that Colorado has an open carry law that allows public handling of firearms.

The rights of ordinary citizens are being pushed aside by the gun lobby! If the police had responded to this call 3 innocent victims might have been spared.

Colorado Springs gunman, victims ID'd; police quickly confronted, shot suspect - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29059452/colorado-springs-police-confronted-shot-gunman-minutes)

Those who would like certain gun rights are in fact ordinary citizens as well. So nobody is pushing anybody aside at all. Just adding or deleting rights that others may have or not have or want or not want. There is no negotiaiting of give us this right and push another aside. It is an emotional decsription and not factual.

Gun rights are there for any ordinary citizen to advantage of or not!!

On the open carry issue. It usually pertains to handguns, although not limited to them.
Open carry or not, if there was anybody meandering around with a rifle I would call the authorities and describe the actions as suspect warranting a verification.

People need to get over trying to not offend someone when they execute a see something say something situation. We need to err on the side of being safe not worrying about offending someone.

Sorta like snakes in a way. Don't waste time trying to figure if it is poisonous or not. Treat them all as if poisonous until knowledgeably determing other wise.

[cologal]

Another useless argument for more laws. Criminals do not let laws govern their lives, Never have. If laws prevented any crime the prisons would be empty.

Not my intent... There is a problem with a law if this man's right to Open Carry trumps the general publics safety

I don't recall any verbiage in the 2nd amendment to a right to open carry correct if I am wrong.

[BobnBev]

Unless the officer had probably cause (breaking a law, etc.), the person open carrying would not have to identify himself.

You just keep believing that.:a20:

[Steve9930]

Blaming Guns for these shootings is like blaming Automobiles for Automobile Accidents.

[Taltarzac725]

Blaming Guns for these shootings is like blaming Automobiles for Automobile Accidents.

Except an automobile's purpose is transportation not killing and maiming. There are weapons that are more appropriate on battlefields than on the streets of various cities. Common sense should show which guns/rifles/pistols these are.

Criminals will still get their hands on these but not as easily if there are more enforced laws. The mentally ill would get less of these in their control too if there were more well written laws that take into account the rights of those with various mental illnesses.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

So sick and tired of these ultra liberal anti gun people wanting more laws thinking the laws will protect them and solve everything. How stupid can you be. Apparently pretty darn stupid. The criminals and crazy people out there do not follow any laws let alone gun laws. Guns are not at fault people are! Why can you understand this?

As for open carry there are good and bad points. Most people who carry a gun prefer to keep it concealed for obvious reasons.

Now we hear that Hillary favors the government taking all guns from the people regardless of the 2nd amendment. Get ready for the second American Revolution folks. How many people will die then?

[outlaw]

Not my intent... There is a problem with a law if this man's right to Open Carry trumps the general publics safety

I don't recall any verbiage in the 2nd amendment to a right to open carry correct if I am wrong.

"shall not be infringed". if you believe open carry is a form of bearing arms, just like concealed carry, then banning one form of bearing arms (open carry) could be considered "infringing" on a person's choice on how to bear arms. I'm not advocating open carry, just debating why many think it is a violation of the 2nd A.

[Taltarzac725]

So sick and tired of these ultra liberal anti gun people wanting more laws thinking the laws will protect them and solve everything. How stupid can you be. Apparently pretty darn stupid. The criminals and crazy people out there do not follow any laws let alone gun laws. Guns are not at fault people are! Why can you understand this?

As for open carry there are good and bad points. Most people who carry a gun prefer to keep it concealed for obvious reasons.

Now we hear that Hillary favors the government taking all guns from the people regardless of the 2nd amendment. Get ready for the second American Revolution folks. How many people will die then?

Where do you get this Hillary myth?

And some people following the laws about guns will result in fewer guns out there and fewer mentally ill people having access to them. It is like the NRA has people brainwashed. Use your common sense.

How the hell could any politician confiscate all the guns in the hands of people in the US? That's an impossible proposition.

[outlaw]

Except an automobile's purpose is transportation not killing and maiming. There are weapons that are more appropriate on battlefields than on the streets of various cities. Common sense should show which guns/rifles/pistols these are.

Criminals will still get their hands on these but not as easily if there are more enforced laws. The mentally ill would get less of these in their control too if there were more well written laws that take into account the rights of those with various mental illnesses.

If you believe that one of the purposes of the 2nd A is to defend against an oppressive government, then what better weapon for the citizen to possess than than those used on the battlefield?

[outlaw]

Where do you get this Hillary myth?

And some people following the laws about guns will result in fewer guns out there and fewer mentally ill people having access to them. It is like the NRA has people brainwashed. Use your common sense.

How the hell could any politician confiscate all the guns in the hands of people in the US? That's an impossible proposition.

If you feel so strongly about gun ownership, why not work to change the 2nd A instead of trying to circumvent it or water it down with new laws and creative interpretations?

[Taltarzac725]

If you believe that one of the purposes of the 2nd A is to defend against an oppressive government, then what better weapon for the citizen to possess than than those used on the battlefield?

The rebels would be taking on the police SWAT teams, the military, and the like.

I do not believe the 2nd Amendment was even written with such a scenario in mind. It was written in case the British or some power like the Canadians or Mexicans came at the fledgling US like with the War of 1812, battles along the Mexican-American border and various Indian Wars. They wanted militias that were well armed in the very real possibility that attacks would come as they had before in the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers.

They wanted Minute Men not terrorists like those fighting in the French and other Revolutions. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/french-rev

First and foremost these were people who fought with the pen and not the sword.

National Constitution Center (http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii)

[outlaw]

The rebels would be taking on the police SWAT teams, the military, and the like.

I do not believe the 2nd Amendment was even written with such a scenario in mind. It was written in case the British or some power like the Canadians or Mexicans came at the fledgling US like with the War of 1812, battles along the Mexican-American border and various Indian Wars. They wanted militias that were well armed in the very real possibility that attacks would come as they had before in the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers.

They wanted Minute Men not terrorists like those fighting in the French and other Revolutions. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/french-rev

First and foremost these were people who fought with the pen and not the sword.

Then I guess my comment doesn't apply to you.

[Taltarzac725]

If you feel so strongly about gun ownership, why not work to change the 2nd A instead of trying to circumvent it or water it down with new laws and creative interpretations?

Common sense interpretations of laws not so much creative. What does this weapon do, what's its rate of fire, how easily can it be changed to automatic, etc?

It is like saying the Billionaire Donald Trump should have a nuclear weapon in case the Federal Government becomes oppressive. Trump can do more work in changing things with his mouth than using violence.

[outlaw]

Common sense interpretations of laws not so much creative. What does this weapon do, what's its rate of fire, how easily can it be changed to automatic, etc?

It is like saying the Billionaire Donald Trump should have a nuclear weapon in case the Federal Government becomes oppressive. Trump can do more work in changing things with his mouth than using violence.

When you say something like that, it shows you have no understanding the 2nd A, nor do you understand the difficulty in a government fighting its own citizens, pitting citizens against citizens (military/police/etc.).

[Taltarzac725]

When you say something like that, it shows you have no understanding the 2nd A, nor do you understand the difficulty in a government fighting its own citizens, pitting citizens against citizens (military/police/etc.).

Except for various rebellions like the US Civil War.... Civil War Armories (http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Articles/History/Civil%20War%20American%20Armories/Civil%20War%20American%20Armories.html)

Ever hear of John Brown, Robert E. Lee and Harper's Ferry? John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid (http://www.civilwar.org/150th-anniversary/john-browns-harpers-ferry.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/)

[Walter123]

I thought this thread was about open carry? It figures.

[billethkid]

The rebels would be taking on the police SWAT teams, the military, and the like. They already do in any one of the cities listed to have the most strict gun laws in the country!

I do not believe the 2nd Amendment was even written with such a scenario in mind. It was written in case the British or some power like the Canadians or Mexicans came at the fledgling US like with the War of 1812, battles along the Mexican-American border and various Indian Wars. They wanted militias that were well armed in the very real possibility that attacks would come as they had before in the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers.

They wanted Minute Men not terrorists like those fighting in the French and other Revolutions. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/french-rev

First and foremost these were people who fought with the pen and not the sword.

National Constitution Center (http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii)

It would be very helpful when folks are discussing gun control just exactly what it is they want to accomplish.
The anti gun folks always paint with the broadest brush possible when proposing more controls.

Additionaly they never contrast how having more gun control laws does not work as demonstrated in Chicago, Los Angeles, NYC, et al.

There needs to be more specifics as in how to keep mentally ill from getting guns. How to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Those two alone would all but elinate the so called gun problem here in the USA. And of course in our permissive, don't offend anybody society there is no chance to make either work (as proven in Chigao, Los Angeles and NYC).

However to have something to say to appeal to the anti gun voter base, politicians and most all other anti gun people go broad brush. The merry go round continues to spin, hence nothing changes.....

[Taltarzac725]

It would be very helpful when folks are discussing gun control just exactly what it is they want to accomplish.
The anti gun folks always paint with the broadest brush possible when proposing more controls.

Additionaly they never contrast how having more gun control laws does not work as demonstrated in Chicago, Los Angeles, NYC, et al.

There needs to be more specifics as in how to keep mentally ill from getting guns. How to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Those two alone would all but elinate the so called gun problem here in the USA. And of course in our permissive, don't offend anybody society there is no chance to make either work (as proven in Chigao, Los Angeles and NYC).

However to have something to say to appeal to the anti gun voter base, politicians and most all other anti gun people go broad brush. The merry go round continues to spin, hence nothing changes.....

I am not for broad brush policies but more contextual solutions. More power to local governments to get various weapons off the streets through more common sense approaches like perhaps putting a reasonable New Yorker, Chicagolander, etc. in as a test to what guns/weapons/etc. they should get out of the community. Cases would decide what the "reasonable" Chicagolander would actually sound like.

What works in New York City would not really work that well in the Villages.

Colorado Springs would be a different standard as well. I assume there are a lot of avid hunters in that area of Colorado as well as Air Force personnel.

Criminals-- gangs primarily- do get around various City, State and Federal laws in places like Los Angeles. I do not believe armed gangs like these are what the Founding Fathers had in mind with a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms. They seemed more to be addressing the National Guard that at times might be called in to deal with various riots in cities like Los Angeles. Watts Riots (http://crdl.usg.edu/events/watts_riots/?Welcome)

[justjim]

Except an automobile's purpose is transportation not killing and maiming. There are weapons that are more appropriate on battlefields than on the streets of various cities. Common sense should show which guns/rifles/pistols these are.

Criminals will still get their hands on these but not as easily if there are more enforced laws. The mentally ill would get less of these in their control too if there were more well written laws that take into account the rights of those with various mental illnesses.

Open carry is a law in some States. I think many are getting this and our "Constitutional right" to have a gun mixed up. It's like apples and oranges---both fruit but not the same.

If I understand the OP was not saying you shouldn't own a gun---just thought "open carry" was a bad idea. I own a gun, three of them, but I keep them in my possession but not outside in my yard or at the golf course or park waving them around. Such is a real slippery slope.

[Taltarzac725]

Open carry is a law in some States. I think many are getting this and our "Constitutional right" to have a gun mixed up. It's like apples and oranges---both fruit but not the same.

If I understand the OP was not saying you shouldn't own a gun---just thought "open carry" was a bad idea. I own a gun, three of them, but I keep them in my possession but not outside in my yard or at the golf course or park waving them around. Such is a real slippery slope.

I usually carry my rifle in a gun slip when moving it from the house to the car and back. I also always treat if as if it were loaded even when I am fairly certain it is empty.

If I saw a guy with a rifle acting strange here in the Villages, I would call 911.

[billethkid]

I am not for broad brush policies but more contextual solutions. More power to local governments to get various weapons off the streets through more common sense approaches like perhaps putting a reasonable New Yorker, Chicagolander, etc. in as a test to what guns/weapons/etc. they should get out of the community. Cases would decide what the "reasonable" Chicagolander would actually sound like.

What works in New York City would not really work that well in the Villages.

Colorado Springs would be a different standard as well. I assume there are a lot of avid hunters in that area of Colorado as well as Air Force personnel.

Criminals-- gangs primarily- do get around various City, State and Federal laws in places like Los Angeles. I do not believe armed gangs like these are what the Founding Fathers had in min with a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms. They seemed more to be addressing the National Guard that at times might be called in to deal with various riots in cities like Los Angeles.

While I am not familiar with the specifics of differing cities, I assume they are each somewhat tailored to their areas needs/wants.

Using Chicago as the example; clearly demonstrates that what ever they intended with all the current gun legislation, it is not working.

I do really think there is an air of accomplishment by too many politicians....that they feel they have addressed and issue or a problem, some by merely talking about it; others by passing more laws/rules. The failing is in the accountability of following up to determine what effect has there been. In Chicago as the example, it is clear they have not solved anything with more, stricter gun legislation. One conclusion being they missed the mark. They are thinking and acting general population when they should be addressing the specifics of criminals and others that should not have access to guns. Perhaps they know these in out current environment are not solveable. So they feel a need to "do something" even if it does not work....which it is not in Chicago (and others like it).

[Walter123]

45 states allow open carry in some form. Florida is NOT one of them but that's about to change......

[Steve9930]

Except an automobile's purpose is transportation not killing and maiming. There are weapons that are more appropriate on battlefields than on the streets of various cities. Common sense should show which guns/rifles/pistols these are.

Criminals will still get their hands on these but not as easily if there are more enforced laws. The mentally ill would get less of these in their control too if there were more well written laws that take into account the rights of those with various mental illnesses.

There are already laws that are adequate to remove guns from people that should not have them. They are not enforced. Adding new laws would only add to the number of laws not being enforced. Why do people think making a law solves the problem? I always chuckle when I hear we need universal background checks. We already have background checks. The problem is the system is run by Government. Government never runs things well. As for guns and cars. Yes one is used for transportation and the other for defense. That is not the argument. They are things. Things don't decide to do something wrong, people do. There have been the same types of weapons in society since the invention of the gun. What has changed is our attitude toward each other and the lack of respect. You can't fix that with a law. What type of weapon I choose to have for my protection is my business and no one else's.

[Steve9930]

45 states allow open carry in some form. Florida is one of them but that's about to change......

Florida only allows open carry of a side arm if you are fishing. You may not carry a side arm in an open manner in Florida. You must carry concealed at this point and have a Concealed Carry Permit. You are correct that there is about to be a change in the law in Florida. The Florida Senate has passed or will soon pass changes to the carry law in Florida. You will be able to carry a side arm in Florida in an open manner if you have a concealed carry permit. I applaud the legislators for finally using some common sense when it comes to caring a firearm. I don't carry it to have a fight, I carry it to prevent it.

[Walter123]

Florida only allows open carry of a side arm if you are fishing. You may not carry a side arm in an open manner in Florida. You must carry concealed at this point and have a Concealed Carry Permit. You are correct that there is about to be a change in the law in Florida. The Florida Senate has passed or will soon pass changes to the carry law in Florida. You will be able to carry a side arm in Florida in an open manner if you have a concealed carry permit. I applaud the legislators for finally using some common sense when it comes to caring a firearm. I don't carry it to have a fight, I carry it to prevent it.

You are correct. I meant to say Florida does not allow open carry and edited my previous post.

[Walter123]

There are already laws that are adequate to remove guns from people that should not have them. They are not enforced. Adding new laws would only add to the number of laws not being enforced. Why do people think making a law solves the problem? I always chuckle when I hear we need universal background checks. We already have background checks. The problem is the system is run by Government. Government never runs things well. As for guns and cars. Yes one is used for transportation and the other for defense. That is not the argument. They are things. Things don't decide to do something wrong, people do. There have been the same types of weapons in society since the invention of the gun. What has changed is our attitude toward each other and the lack of respect. You can't fix that with a law. What type of weapon I choose to have for my protection is my business and no one else's.

Spot on.

[Steve9930]

So sick and tired of these ultra liberal anti gun people wanting more laws thinking the laws will protect them and solve everything. How stupid can you be. Apparently pretty darn stupid. The criminals and crazy people out there do not follow any laws let alone gun laws. Guns are not at fault people are! Why can you understand this?

As for open carry there are good and bad points. Most people who carry a gun prefer to keep it concealed for obvious reasons.

Now we hear that Hillary favors the government taking all guns from the people regardless of the 2nd amendment. Get ready for the second American Revolution folks. How many people will die then?

I'm a firm believer in open carry of a firearm. With the following restrictions, you must have a background check and must attend a gun safety course, and receive a picture ID just like a conceal carry license. The reason I prefer open carry as to conceal carry is two fold. One is I only want to use the weapon as the last resort. Criminals look for easy targets. They do not want to target someone who could cause them harm. So if they see I'm armed, they will most likely pass me by and those that are directly around me. If they do not, then be happy you have a way to defend yourself. Second its time to get rid of this gunphobia in this nation. This fear of guns by the general public is just not healthy. Just because you see a person with a gun on them is not a reason to call 911. You call 911 because of the way they are acting not because you get a peak at a gun under their coat.

[Steve9930]

You are correct. I meant to say Florida does not allow open carry and edited my previous post.

Okey Dokey, Thanks.

[Taltarzac725]

There are already laws that are adequate to remove guns from people that should not have them. They are not enforced. Adding new laws would only add to the number of laws not being enforced. Why do people think making a law solves the problem? I always chuckle when I hear we need universal background checks. We already have background checks. The problem is the system is run by Government. Government never runs things well. As for guns and cars. Yes one is used for transportation and the other for defense. That is not the argument. They are things. Things don't decide to do something wrong, people do. There have been the same types of weapons in society since the invention of the gun. What has changed is our attitude toward each other and the lack of respect. You can't fix that with a law. What type of weapon I choose to have for my protection is my business and no one else's.

Can you give some examples of these laws? And I agree that government rarely runs things very well. What Gun Advocates Get Wrong About Chicago's Gun Laws: Chicagoist (http://chicagoist.com/2015/10/08/_gop_presidential_candidates_donald.php)

[outlaw]

I'm a firm believer in open carry of a firearm. With the following restrictions, you must have a background check and must attend a gun safety course, and receive a picture ID just like a conceal carry license. The reason I prefer open carry as to conceal carry is two fold. One is I only want to use the weapon as the last resort. Criminals look for easy targets. They do not want to target someone who could cause them harm. So if they see I'm armed, they will most likely pass me by and those that are directly around me. If they do not, then be happy you have a way to defend yourself. Second its time to get rid of this gunphobia in this nation. This fear of guns by the general public is just not healthy. Just because you see a person with a gun on them is not a reason to call 911. You call 911 because of the way they are acting not because you get a peak at a gun under their coat.

That's an interesting pov. I think the growing pains of open carry could be a tough one. I think I would wait until it is common to see holstered guns in Publix and at the recreation centers before I would feel comfortable open carrying.

[billethkid]

For those of us who have been in open carry states (map for reference to states allowing it):

Map: Where Is (http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/map-where-is-open-carry-legal-1715/)

I bet most will be surprised when they see how many do allow open carry.

Now start to enumerate in your mind how many folks you ever saw while you were in those states.

Most will answer none.

Too many have uneducated/uninformed visions of people with guns strapped to their hip all around us. As experienced in the states that allow it....THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

As in almost everything else discussed/debated/argued about guns.....too many uninformed, innacurate comments made. All for the purpose of an agenda only. Reality has little of nothing to do with most....unfortunately....in our special interest, minority group focused society.

[Steve9930]

Can you give some examples of these laws? And I agree that government rarely runs things very well. What Gun Advocates Get Wrong About Chicago's Gun Laws: Chicagoist (http://chicagoist.com/2015/10/08/_gop_presidential_candidates_donald.php)

Lets start with the misleading information in the article. It is against federal Law to buy a hand gun in a state you are not a resident. Unless in the state you are a resident in, allows you to buy a gun from a neighboring state. Now the neighboring state must also allow the out of state purchase to happen. Indiana may allow out of state purchases by a neighboring state but Illinois does not. So therefore laws are being broken and they are not being enforced. Also you can trust what Bloomberg says about as far as you can throw him. You cannot buy a hand gun in Wisconsin if you are a resident of Illinois, I believe. Not sure about the other neighboring states but the Illinois Law stops it cold either way. So how do the criminals get their guns, illegally. Any Prosecution? I can only buy a hand gun in Florida legally as a Florida resident.

Buying a gun for another person with the intent of giving it to the other person and you know they do not qualify to legally buy a hand gun, straw purchase, is against Federal Law. How many of those were prosecuted? There was a gun dealer that had over 300 violations in selling guns and they are still in business as far as I know.

It is against Federal law to sell guns for a living with out being a FFL Dealer . People are doing this all the time. 60 minutes even did a piece on the subject. Any Arrests?, None. Also ATF was onsite at this particular gun show. You are only allowed by Federal Law to sell a certain number of guns in a month. I do not know what that number is but you can't make a living at it. These people are breaking the law, any arrests?

Negligence, current law allows you to be prosecuted for negligence. How many prosecutions for negligence with a firearm?

The list could go on but what's the point. If no one is going to prosecute then the law is just words on paper. Like I said there are plenty of laws.

Here's another tid bit. When law enforcement did random searches of people, stop and frisk in high crime areas, which by the way has been shown to be very effective in reducing gun crime, where they knew the individual was caring illegally, what happened? Here they come, NAACP, ACLU.

Background checks: Great idea, we have them already. But the way they are implemented they won't catch much. You need an up to date central database. Not of who's purchasing, but of who should not be allowed to purchase. That does not exist. Most things stop at the state line or the data is never reported. Again a good idea but if not implemented properly, useless.

Last thing. Look at all the mass shootings. In each case there were people that knew there was a problem, and negligence in properly securing or providing a firearm.

[Fuzz323]

Unless the officer had probably cause (breaking a law, etc.), the person open carrying would not have to identify himself.
Open carry or concealed carry - you still have to have a permit to carry which the officer
would have had the right to ask for and examine. Now we have the mans ID which could then be checked further if warranted. That is unless things are REALLY loose in Colorado?

[outlaw]

Open carry or concealed carry - you still have to have a permit to carry which the officer
would have had the right to ask for and examine. Now we have the mans ID which could then be checked further if warranted. That is unless things are REALLY loose in Colorado?

I'm not sure the leo has the right to ask see the CCL. Are you sure of that in Florida?

[billethkid]

I'm not sure the leo has the right to ask see the CCL. Are you sure of that in Florida?

If you are carrying a gun you are required to have the permit on you. Carrying without it is a no-no.

I do not know the specifics of what a LEO can do, but I would suspect if he should see or become aware a person is carrying a weapon, my guess is he would be within the law to ask for the concealed permit.

[outlaw]

If you are carrying a gun you are required to have the permit on you. Carrying without it is a no-no.

I do not know the specifics of what a LEO can do, but I would suspect if he should see or become aware a person is carrying a weapon, my guess is he would be within the law to ask for the concealed permit.

Yes. I am aware of the requirement to have a CCL on your person when carrying. It is the issue of the requirement to show an leo the license without having been suspected of committing a crime. I look at it as an leo asking you if you have been drinking without having probable cause, like at a random check point. I'm not saying I would refuse. I would most likely show him my CCL. I may ask him/her if I am required by law to show my CCL upon request. It was really more of an academic question/curiosity.

[outlaw]

I found this:
There is no Florida law that requires you to inform Law Enforcement that you are carrying a concealed weapon. You are only required to carry your Florida Concealed Weapon License and valid identification when carrying concealed and display both upon demand by a law enforcement officer.

“790.06 …. The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court“

[Shimpy]

I found this:
There is no Florida law that requires you to inform Law Enforcement that you are carrying a concealed weapon. You are only required to carry your Florida Concealed Weapon License and valid identification when carrying concealed and display both upon demand by a law enforcement officer.

“790.06 …. The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court“


I was pulled over by a LEO years ago in Boca Raton Fla. and when I got out my drivers license he happened to notice my CCL. He asked if I was carrying and I said yes. He told me that I must let LEO's know and he could have sited me for not doing so.

[Steve9930]

I was pulled over by a LEO years ago in Boca Raton Fla. and when I got out my drivers license he happened to notice my CCL. He asked if I was carrying and I said yes. He told me that I must let LEO's know and he could have sited me for not doing so.

I let them know anyway. This way they feel more comfortable. I basically have nothing to hide so if I'm stopped they will get my license and CCW Permit at that time I will let him know if there is a weapon onboard and where that weapon is located. Giving them your CCW tells that officer that you should be squeaky clean. Sometimes its better to do the common sense thing instead of trying to figure out do I have to or not.

[Walter123]

I let them know anyway. This way they feel more comfortable. I basically have nothing to hide so if I'm stopped they will get my license and CCW Permit at that time I will let him know if there is a weapon onboard and where that weapon is located. Giving them your CCW tells that officer that you should be squeaky clean. Sometimes its better to do the common sense thing instead of trying to figure out do I have to or not.

Same here. When I first took a class for a ccw the instructor said it's a good idea to let the LEO know you have a legal fire arm in the car just in case he/she happens to see it while you're looking for your license or whatever.

[Carl in Tampa]

There are 45 states which already have open carry laws, to be joined by Texas on January 2, 2016. There is currently a bill in the Florida Congress to add Florida to the list. Note, that prior to passing a Concealed Weapons License law in Florida, we had an open carry law.

Below is a lengthy fact sheet about the proposed Florida law written by the Executive Director of United Sportsmen of Florida.

Attention Floridians!!!

Florida Alert from NRA-ILA: The Truth about Open Carry -- Erroneous Claims Exposed
DATE: November 1, 2015
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President

Many folks remember that during the fight to pass Florida's Concealed Carry law, the Florida Sheriffs Association opposed concealed carry. They literally said they didn't like "hidden guns."

At the time, open carry was legal in Florida and had been for decades. They said if people were going to be allowed to carry guns, they needed to carry them openly so law enforcement officers could see them and know who had guns -- they claimed it was a matter of officer safety.

Now, they have reversed positions. They claim concealed carry is fine and they don't mind concealed guns. BUT, open carry is dangerous. They claim they won't know the good guys from the bad guys, and one sheriff (now retired) said law enforcement would have to "draw down" and anybody carrying openly. You've probably heard or read most of the rhetoric.

They always lead off saying they are strong Second Amendment supporters then proceed to explain why they OPPOSE Second Amendment rights.

The Constitution guarantees your right to keep and bear arms and it certainly doesn't say you can only exercise your rights if your sheriff agrees with it.

Below are the facts about open carry -- it is a rebuttal of some the latest claims. You may also click here The Truth About Open Carry to download a copy for the fact sheet to share with others.

The Truth About

The Open Carry Bill & the 45 States that Allow Open Carry

In recent Palm Beach Post Blog articles and a Tampa Bay Times Blog article, the Chairman of the Florida Sheriffs Association's Legislative Committee (FSA) is quoted with some erroneous claims regarding the proposed open carry bill in Florida (SB-300 by Sen. Don Gaetz and HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz).

In recent Palm Beach Post Blog articles and a Tampa Bay Times Blog article, the Chairman of the Florida Sheriffs Association's Legislative Committee (FSA) is quoted with some erroneous claims regarding the proposed open carry bill in Florida (SB-300 by Sen. Don Gaetz and HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz).

Below are some of those claims and our responses.

FSA CLAIM: "The bill as currently drafted is extremely broad, lacking limits on when, how or where firearms could be carried."

FACT: The same provisions and restrictions that apply to concealed carry also apply to open carry (s.790.06). Only a person with a license to carry concealed will be able to carry openly. Additionally, the improper exhibition of firearms law (s.790.10) applies whether carrying concealed or openly.

Further, because of these and other erroneous claims, a clarification amendment, to stop open carry opponents from continuing to make such false claims, was added to the bill in Senate Criminal Justice Committee the morning of 10/20/15 – We know the spokesman made that claim even AFTER the clarification amendment was added because the spokesman made reference to an amendment "that didn't pass" in the same committee meeting.

Since the FSA spokesman obviously doesn't want to believe the NRA's data, the following data was provided by Florida Carry, Inc. – and their data confirms ours.

FSA CLAIM: "The bill's proponents claim that 45 other states already allow open-carry. But that's not really accurate."

FACT: To the contrary, it is accurate. Forty-five (45) states allow open carry of firearms. Varying restrictions on open carry in some states does not alter the fact that 45 states allow open carry.

15 of 45 open carry states require a license to carry concealed or openly.
30 of 45 open carry states do not require any license to carry openly.
0 of 15 of the concealed carry license states require additional training to carry openly.
0 of 45 states offer a separate "open carry" license.
2 of 45 states require an open carry holster. On 1/1/16 Texas will require a holster.
0 of 45 states require a retention holster.
5 of 15 are "may-issue" states where law enforcement issues licenses.
15 of 15 states require the license holder to produce the license on lawful demand by a law enforcement officer.

FSA CLAIM: "... most open-carry states have strict rules about ... producing the permit on demand."

FACT: This is a red herring. FLORIDA law already requires license holders to produce a license on demand by a law enforcement officer. And for the record, all 15 states that require a license, require producing the license on lawful demand by a law enforcement officer.

FSA CLAIM: "...[I]t's ‘intellectually dishonest' to say open carry laws are working in the 45 other states because there are so many variations in the laws and the demographics.

FACT: The open carry laws are working in 45 states. Opponents have presented no evidence to the contrary – no evidence that it isn't working in any state and no evidence of problems in any state. These are just baseless allegations. Simply because different states have variations in their laws does not in any way alter the fact that open carry is allowed and that it’s working.

FSA CLAIM: "In Pennsylvania, for example, cities can opt out of its open carry law and some, including Philadelphia, do just that, Gualtieri said. Florida cities don't have the option to opt out of a state law."

FACT: Pennsylvania DOES NOT allow cities to opt out of its open carry law. Pennsylvania does not require a license for a person to carry openly. Philadelphia cannot "opt out" of the state open carry law. Pennsylvania state law allows the city of Philadelphia (and only Philadelphia) to require a license to carry openly in Philadelphia.

FSA CLAIM: As for demographics, "You can't compare Sioux Falls, S.D. to downtown Miami or downtown Tampa or downtown Orlando," Gualtieri said.

FACT: This argument is illogical and perhaps intentionally misleading. Seventy percent (70%) of the American public live in open carry states from all regions of the country. Many of the 45 open carry states have large and diverse cities just like Florida and where you live geographically, whether it's Trilby, FL or Fanning Springs, FL, you have the same constitutional rights as citizens who live in Miami, Tampa, or Orlando.
F
FSA CLAIM: "...the state's trespass law gives businesses the right to ask anyone openly carrying a weapon to leave their property," but they ... "will be reluctant to tell a person wearing a .45 to leave."

FACT: Posting signs prohibiting open carry inside a business establishment is a simple solution. Proper notification will stop citizens from even entering the establishment. Property owners already must post trespass signs to notify the public to stay off private property.

Businesses have the right to refuse service and evict anyone they wish unless it's done on the basis of race, gender, or religion. Further, it is common to see signs that say, "No shirt, no shoes - no service." Why are they reluctant to post signs saying, "No open carrying of firearms?"

FSA CLAIM: "..if you are McDonald's you won't be able to exclude somebody from putting their gun on the table and sitting there and eating."

FACT: Again, any business may evict a customer for behavior they deem to be offensive, dangerous or inappropriate. Further it is a criminal offense under s.790.10 to exhibit a firearm in a rude or careless manner.

[Bay Kid]

I left my shotgun on the porch for 2 days. It still hasn't killed anything.

[Steve9930]

Ohio has the perfect setup. Anyone can open carry and you can conceal carry with a permit. This is the best of two worlds. You can strap the weapon on, get a conceal carry permit, and then never have to worry if your legal. If you put your jacket on your legal, if you take your jacket off your legal. No hassle, no worries.

Having cities opt out is not very smart. In one city your legal and the next your not, too much nonsense.

I do believe however, to carry in public, should require a license. To obtain that license you should be required to have the following, training on the firearm you will be carrying and a permit from the state just like the conceal carry requirement currently. I do not believe that is too much to ask.

Even though I carry and support the right to carry I also want to make sure the person sitting next to me with that cannon on their belt has some idea how to shoot it correctly. People also need to understand when you pull the trigger, you own the bullet no matter where it goes. So you need to understand a bit about ballistics and over penetration. Along with the right to carry also comes great responsibility.

The public also needs to understand that those carrying don't carry because I want a gun fight, I carry because I want to be left alone. This is why I believe open carry is better then conceal carry. Conceal Carry makes the public happy but does not do as much to deter crime. Criminals are cowards in most cases. The presence of a gun will make them look elsewhere for a victim. Those criminals that don't care about whether you have a weapon, will make you glad you had a chance to defend yourself. Or maybe it was the person who did not want guns and a person with a gun is there to help. Law enforcement cannot be everywhere. With the right training and attitude it really does make a difference. With society as it is today, personal defense has become a necessity.

[billethkid]

Ohio has the perfect setup. Anyone can open carry and you can conceal carry with a permit. This is the best of two worlds. You can strap the weapon on, get a conceal carry permit, and then never have to worry if your legal. If you put your jacket on your legal, if you take your jacket off your legal. No hassle, no worries.

Having cities opt out is not very smart. In one city your legal and the next your not, too much nonsense.

I do believe however, to carry in public, should require a license. To obtain that license you should be required to have the following, training on the firearm you will be carrying and a permit from the state just like the conceal carry requirement currently. I do not believe that is too much to ask.

Even though I carry and support the right to carry I also want to make sure the person sitting next to me with that cannon on their belt has some idea how to shoot it correctly. People also need to understand when you pull the trigger, you own the bullet no matter where it goes. So you need to understand a bit about ballistics and over penetration. Along with the right to carry also comes great responsibility.

The public also needs to understand that those carrying don't carry because I want a gun fight, I carry because I want to be left alone. This is why I believe open carry is better then conceal carry. Conceal Carry makes the public happy but does not do as much to deter crime. Criminals are cowards in most cases. The presence of a gun will make them look elsewhere for a victim. Those criminals that don't care about whether you have a weapon, will make you glad you had a chance to defend yourself. Or maybe it was the person who did not want guns and a person with a gun is there to help. Law enforcement cannot be everywhere. With the right training and attitude it really does make a difference. With society as it is today, personal defense has become a necessity.

Well done!

:BigApplause:

[outlaw]

There are 45 states which already have open carry laws, to be joined by Texas on January 2, 2016. There is currently a bill in the Florida Congress to add Florida to the list. Note, that prior to passing a Concealed Weapons License law in Florida, we had an open carry law.

Below is a lengthy fact sheet about the proposed Florida law written by the Executive Director of United Sportsmen of Florida.

Attention Floridians!!!

Florida Alert from NRA-ILA: The Truth about Open Carry -- Erroneous Claims Exposed
DATE: November 1, 2015
TO: USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President

Many folks remember that during the fight to pass Florida's Concealed Carry law, the Florida Sheriffs Association opposed concealed carry. They literally said they didn't like "hidden guns."

At the time, open carry was legal in Florida and had been for decades. They said if people were going to be allowed to carry guns, they needed to carry them openly so law enforcement officers could see them and know who had guns -- they claimed it was a matter of officer safety.

Now, they have reversed positions. They claim concealed carry is fine and they don't mind concealed guns. BUT, open carry is dangerous. They claim they won't know the good guys from the bad guys, and one sheriff (now retired) said law enforcement would have to "draw down" and anybody carrying openly. You've probably heard or read most of the rhetoric.

They always lead off saying they are strong Second Amendment supporters then proceed to explain why they OPPOSE Second Amendment rights.

The Constitution guarantees your right to keep and bear arms and it certainly doesn't say you can only exercise your rights if your sheriff agrees with it.

Below are the facts about open carry -- it is a rebuttal of some the latest claims. You may also click here The Truth About Open Carry to download a copy for the fact sheet to share with others.

The Truth About

The Open Carry Bill & the 45 States that Allow Open Carry

In recent Palm Beach Post Blog articles and a Tampa Bay Times Blog article, the Chairman of the Florida Sheriffs Association's Legislative Committee (FSA) is quoted with some erroneous claims regarding the proposed open carry bill in Florida (SB-300 by Sen. Don Gaetz and HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz).

In recent Palm Beach Post Blog articles and a Tampa Bay Times Blog article, the Chairman of the Florida Sheriffs Association's Legislative Committee (FSA) is quoted with some erroneous claims regarding the proposed open carry bill in Florida (SB-300 by Sen. Don Gaetz and HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz).

Below are some of those claims and our responses.

FSA CLAIM: "The bill as currently drafted is extremely broad, lacking limits on when, how or where firearms could be carried."

FACT: The same provisions and restrictions that apply to concealed carry also apply to open carry (s.790.06). Only a person with a license to carry concealed will be able to carry openly. Additionally, the improper exhibition of firearms law (s.790.10) applies whether carrying concealed or openly.

Further, because of these and other erroneous claims, a clarification amendment, to stop open carry opponents from continuing to make such false claims, was added to the bill in Senate Criminal Justice Committee the morning of 10/20/15 – We know the spokesman made that claim even AFTER the clarification amendment was added because the spokesman made reference to an amendment "that didn't pass" in the same committee meeting.

Since the FSA spokesman obviously doesn't want to believe the NRA's data, the following data was provided by Florida Carry, Inc. – and their data confirms ours.

FSA CLAIM: "The bill's proponents claim that 45 other states already allow open-carry. But that's not really accurate."

FACT: To the contrary, it is accurate. Forty-five (45) states allow open carry of firearms. Varying restrictions on open carry in some states does not alter the fact that 45 states allow open carry.

15 of 45 open carry states require a license to carry concealed or openly.
30 of 45 open carry states do not require any license to carry openly.
0 of 15 of the concealed carry license states require additional training to carry openly.
0 of 45 states offer a separate "open carry" license.
2 of 45 states require an open carry holster. On 1/1/16 Texas will require a holster.
0 of 45 states require a retention holster.
5 of 15 are "may-issue" states where law enforcement issues licenses.
15 of 15 states require the license holder to produce the license on lawful demand by a law enforcement officer.

FSA CLAIM: "... most open-carry states have strict rules about ... producing the permit on demand."

FACT: This is a red herring. FLORIDA law already requires license holders to produce a license on demand by a law enforcement officer. And for the record, all 15 states that require a license, require producing the license on lawful demand by a law enforcement officer.

FSA CLAIM: "...[I]t's ‘intellectually dishonest' to say open carry laws are working in the 45 other states because there are so many variations in the laws and the demographics.

FACT: The open carry laws are working in 45 states. Opponents have presented no evidence to the contrary – no evidence that it isn't working in any state and no evidence of problems in any state. These are just baseless allegations. Simply because different states have variations in their laws does not in any way alter the fact that open carry is allowed and that it’s working.

FSA CLAIM: "In Pennsylvania, for example, cities can opt out of its open carry law and some, including Philadelphia, do just that, Gualtieri said. Florida cities don't have the option to opt out of a state law."

FACT: Pennsylvania DOES NOT allow cities to opt out of its open carry law. Pennsylvania does not require a license for a person to carry openly. Philadelphia cannot "opt out" of the state open carry law. Pennsylvania state law allows the city of Philadelphia (and only Philadelphia) to require a license to carry openly in Philadelphia.

FSA CLAIM: As for demographics, "You can't compare Sioux Falls, S.D. to downtown Miami or downtown Tampa or downtown Orlando," Gualtieri said.

FACT: This argument is illogical and perhaps intentionally misleading. Seventy percent (70%) of the American public live in open carry states from all regions of the country. Many of the 45 open carry states have large and diverse cities just like Florida and where you live geographically, whether it's Trilby, FL or Fanning Springs, FL, you have the same constitutional rights as citizens who live in Miami, Tampa, or Orlando.
F
FSA CLAIM: "...the state's trespass law gives businesses the right to ask anyone openly carrying a weapon to leave their property," but they ... "will be reluctant to tell a person wearing a .45 to leave."

FACT: Posting signs prohibiting open carry inside a business establishment is a simple solution. Proper notification will stop citizens from even entering the establishment. Property owners already must post trespass signs to notify the public to stay off private property.

Businesses have the right to refuse service and evict anyone they wish unless it's done on the basis of race, gender, or religion. Further, it is common to see signs that say, "No shirt, no shoes - no service." Why are they reluctant to post signs saying, "No open carrying of firearms?"

FSA CLAIM: "..if you are McDonald's you won't be able to exclude somebody from putting their gun on the table and sitting there and eating."

FACT: Again, any business may evict a customer for behavior they deem to be offensive, dangerous or inappropriate. Further it is a criminal offense under s.790.10 to exhibit a firearm in a rude or careless manner.

Wow! Good post. Lots of useful info. Thanks.

[outlaw]

Ohio has the perfect setup. Anyone can open carry and you can conceal carry with a permit. This is the best of two worlds. You can strap the weapon on, get a conceal carry permit, and then never have to worry if your legal. If you put your jacket on your legal, if you take your jacket off your legal. No hassle, no worries.

Having cities opt out is not very smart. In one city your legal and the next your not, too much nonsense.

I do believe however, to carry in public, should require a license. To obtain that license you should be required to have the following, training on the firearm you will be carrying and a permit from the state just like the conceal carry requirement currently. I do not believe that is too much to ask.

Even though I carry and support the right to carry I also want to make sure the person sitting next to me with that cannon on their belt has some idea how to shoot it correctly. People also need to understand when you pull the trigger, you own the bullet no matter where it goes. So you need to understand a bit about ballistics and over penetration. Along with the right to carry also comes great responsibility.

The public also needs to understand that those carrying don't carry because I want a gun fight, I carry because I want to be left alone. This is why I believe open carry is better then conceal carry. Conceal Carry makes the public happy but does not do as much to deter crime. Criminals are cowards in most cases. The presence of a gun will make them look elsewhere for a victim. Those criminals that don't care about whether you have a weapon, will make you glad you had a chance to defend yourself. Or maybe it was the person who did not want guns and a person with a gun is there to help. Law enforcement cannot be everywhere. With the right training and attitude it really does make a difference. With society as it is today, personal defense has become a necessity.

Interesting pov. Makes me rethink the training aspect a little. The current training seems to be woefully lacking imo. Pretty much listen to the legal aspects and just shoot a gun once and you get your CCL. But I also believe in the 2nd A and the "shall not infringe" issue. If there were more available, good, affordable combat/self defense courses, I think that would really encourage more people to get trained.

[Steve9930]

Interesting pov. Makes me rethink the training aspect a little. The current training seems to be woefully lacking imo. Pretty much listen to the legal aspects and just shoot a gun once and you get your CCL. But I also believe in the 2nd A and the "shall not infringe" issue. If there were more available, good, affordable combat/self defense courses, I think that would really encourage more people to get trained.

I think if you go back to the rulings of SCOTUS you'll discover that they did leave room for Municipalities to make reasonable requests of Gun Owners. Now if your going to keep this weapon in your home, then I believe you have that right and additional training would be up to you and as far as I'm concerned the local and federal government can go pound sand. Especially when it comes to a long gun. Carrying in public has a different feel to me at least. There is an element where the general public has some concern on the capabilities of the person carrying. I took the training course even though under the law I did not need too since I was a vet and had a DD214. I thought the course could have been better. If your serious about this you will be serious about your capabilities also. Here's is a statement that will really make some short hairs standup on the back of some necks. I believe Gun Safety and Functionality should be taught as a mandatory course in High School.

[outlaw]

I think if you go back to the rulings of SCOTUS you'll discover that they did leave room for Municipalities to make reasonable requests of Gun Owners. Now if your going to keep this weapon in your home, then I believe you have that right and additional training would be up to you and as far as I'm concerned the local and federal government can go pound sand. Especially when it comes to a long gun. Carrying in public has a different feel to me at least. There is an element where the general public has some concern on the capabilities of the person carrying. I took the training course even though under the law I did not need too since I was a vet and had a DD214. I thought the course could have been better. If your serious about this you will be serious about your capabilities also. Here's is a statement that will really make some short hairs standup on the back of some necks. I believe Gun Safety and Functionality should be taught as a mandatory course in High School.

I agree, but I would settle for just getting back to the 3 R's.

[Steve9930]

I think if you go back to the rulings of SCOTUS you'll discover that they did leave room for Municipalities to make reasonable requests of Gun Owners. Now if your going to keep this weapon in your home, then I believe you have that right and additional training would be up to you and as far as I'm concerned the local and federal government can go pound sand. Especially when it comes to a long gun. Carrying in public has a different feel to me at least. There is an element where the general public has some concern on the capabilities of the person carrying. I took the training course even though under the law I did not need too since I was a vet and had a DD214. I thought the course could have been better. If your serious about this you will be serious about your capabilities also. Here's is a statement that will really make some short hairs standup on the back of some necks. I believe Gun Safety and Functionality should be taught as a mandatory course in High School.

I agree, but I would settle for just getting back to the 3 R's.

That comment is spot on.......its pretty bad when you can't get a McDonalds Drive thru order correct:bowdown:

[Walter123]

[QUOTE=Steve9930;1140879] I believe Gun Safety and Functionality should be taught as a mandatory course in High School.

Funny that you mention that. There is a school in PA that is doing just that. I think it is long overdue. However you'll never see these types of classes in places like NY, MA, CT, NJ.

Gun Safety Lessons For 6-Year-Olds In Pennsylvania School - Is It Safe or Risky? [POLL] : News : Parent Herald (http://www.parentherald.com/articles/12120/20151104/gun-safety-lessons-for-6-year-olds-in-pennsylvania-school-is-it-safe-or-risky-poll.htm)

[Steve9930]

[QUOTE=Steve9930;1140879] I believe Gun Safety and Functionality should be taught as a mandatory course in High School.

Funny that you mention that. There is a school in PA that is doing just that. I think it is long overdue. However you'll never see these types of classes in places like NY, MA, CT, NJ.

Gun Safety Lessons For 6-Year-Olds In Pennsylvania School - Is It Safe or Risky? [POLL] : News : Parent Herald (http://www.parentherald.com/articles/12120/20151104/gun-safety-lessons-for-6-year-olds-in-pennsylvania-school-is-it-safe-or-risky-poll.htm)

Good article. I believe its in the right direction. Kids are curious. Guns are seen everywhere. If they have never been introduced they are going to be fascinated when for some reason they find one they should not have found. Boys and their toys, its just in our nature. If all you know is what you see on TV about guns you really don't have a grasp of the reality of a firearm. I think children now days are intelligent enough to understand if given the chance. Just like the schooling on what can happen when you drink and drive, you can teach what can happen when you don't respect a firearm.

[Shimpy]

[QUOTE=Walter123;1140966][QUOTE=outlaw;1140883]

I think children now days are intelligent enough to understand if given the chance. Just like the schooling on what can happen when you drink and drive, you can teach what can happen when you don't respect a firearm.

I believe to this day that my father showing me what a bullet can do gave me my respect for firearms. He demonstrated to me how much it could penetrate into wood. I was very impressed. He also taught me to to treat all guns as loaded. There is no such thing as an empty gun.

[dbussone]

[QUOTE=Steve9930;1140879] I believe Gun Safety and Functionality should be taught as a mandatory course in High School.

Funny that you mention that. There is a school in PA that is doing just that. I think it is long overdue. However you'll never see these types of classes in places like NY, MA, CT, NJ.

Gun Safety Lessons For 6-Year-Olds In Pennsylvania School - Is It Safe or Risky? [POLL] : News : Parent Herald (http://www.parentherald.com/articles/12120/20151104/gun-safety-lessons-for-6-year-olds-in-pennsylvania-school-is-it-safe-or-risky-poll.htm)

We lived in Jackson, MS during the mid to late '80s. When our son became a sophomore in high school he was required to take a mandatory gun safety class. I completely support that policy.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

Wow! Good post. Lots of useful info. Thanks.

Ditto that. Thans for taking the tim to provide all the information!

[Carl in Tampa]

I think if you go back to the rulings of SCOTUS you'll discover that they did leave room for Municipalities to make reasonable requests of Gun Owners. Now if your going to keep this weapon in your home, then I believe you have that right and additional training would be up to you and as far as I'm concerned the local and federal government can go pound sand. Especially when it comes to a long gun. Carrying in public has a different feel to me at least. There is an element where the general public has some concern on the capabilities of the person carrying. I took the training course even though under the law I did not need too since I was a vet and had a DD214. I thought the course could have been better. If your serious about this you will be serious about your capabilities also. Here's is a statement that will really make some short hairs standup on the back of some necks. I believe Gun Safety and Functionality should be taught as a mandatory course in High School.

I am not familiar with a SCOTUS ruling that gives specific authority for Municipalities to "make reasonable requests of gun owners." Perhaps you could give me a citation so that I can look it up. That is certainly not true in Florida where there is a state preemption law that establishes that the State has sole authority to pass gun regulation legislation and which prohibits any political subdivision in the state from passing such laws.

On your second point, gun safety training should begin in the lower grades. The NRA Eddie Eagle safety course emphasizes that if a child discovers a gun, the child should: 1. Don't touch, 2. Leave the area, and 3. Tell an adult.

[tomwed]

Every school has the fire department do a show and tell. Why not the police department do one on gun safety? Who knows? Maybe they are doing it already.

[Steve9930]

I am not familiar with a SCOTUS ruling that gives specific authority for Municipalities to "make reasonable requests of gun owners." Perhaps you could give me a citation so that I can look it up. That is certainly not true in Florida where there is a state preemption law that establishes that the State has sole authority to pass gun regulation legislation and which prohibits any political subdivision in the state from passing such laws.

On your second point, gun safety training should begin in the lower grades. The NRA Eddie Eagle safety course emphasizes that if a child discovers a gun, the child should: 1. Don't touch, 2. Leave the area, and 3. Tell an adult.

If you care to do that you can go back and read the entire opinion of the court or if you search the internet there are some synopsis of their opinion.

As for points 1,2,3. Here is the reality, 1) they will touch because it fascinates them, 2)They will not leave the area, 3)They most likely will not tell an adult. First I question whether an adult owns the gun because the child got his hands on it.