Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[Xulld]

I hope you allow me to be skeptical as to the testimony of a surveyed criminal. Just a scoche. A tad.

You shouldn't have to, only 13 (12 now?) states have open carried outlawed, check the others for statistics about persons openly carrying a firearm being attacked for their firearm. I can find none. I find one case where a person was held at gun point and handed over the firearm. So its not that it cant happen, but that rational, sane people tend to find attacking a well armed person a risky proposition. If you fail to get the jump, then its a very risky gun fight. (Police are often targeted, but it has been shown its less about the OC'd weapon and more about the animosity toward the police)

Most criminals who want guns will break into unoccupied homes to get them. 42% of homes have guns, and when no one is home you are unopposed and with little risk.

The FBI's studies where not just asking lifer killers in prisons what they would do, they also collected statistics about criminal usage of guns, and found that ALL criminals conceal there weapons prior to the attack, and try to minimize revealing the fact that they are armed. Really common sense IMHO.

weapons of the kind in common use.

Which is why I think NFA is unconstitutional. The loop hole is that its not a ban only a restriction on new arms, but as common usage changes to newer rifles we are now restricted from ownership without a class 3 dealer license. Just a bunch of crap IMHO, but I guess ill take what I can get . . .

. . and that I cannot put a vertical for-grip on a pistol, or chop down my shotgun, or rifle . . . its a bunch of crap. 10 years of prison for having a for-grip on a pistol is nonsense.

This is clearly a ban on innovation, and common arms available to our military was the intention of the verbiage, but its ignored. But this is really offtopic, so I will /Rantoff

 

[crimresearch]

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. There was no widespread panic, mass shootings, cats-n-dogs sleeping together, etc when other states reaffirmed open carry. When I was young Arkansas had no prohibition on open carry and it was not uncommon to see holstered handguns in public during hunting season. I used to carry a holstered firearm when I was seventeen camping, etc..

I haven't checked in a while, but the states that used to allow open carry, had a caveat that if people complained, the carrier could be asked by the police to leave or face some sort of distrubing the peace charge.

These new 'right to open carry' laws seem designed to do away with that.

I don't predict a wave of shootouts in the immediate future. I do expect stupidity and open carry to have a negative effect somewhere down the road.

Just out of curiousity, have these new open carry states made it so that the public at large can carry directly into legislative offices and chambers?

 

[Resume]

You shouldn't have to, only 13 (12 now?) states have open carried outlawed,

I'll stick with concealed carry thanks (not that I can in Illinois) unless I'l going to the OK Corral. Then I'm on the street howitzer, thanks.

 

[GeeMack]

In the classical meaning of the word, tyrants.

Open carry won't last long though. As soon as the bloodbath begins like it did in the other open carry states, the citizens of Oklahoma will be crawling on hands and knees to the statehouse to beg their babysitters back.

Yep. Pretty soon they'll be wishing they had gun homicide statistics like Illinois, the only state that prohibits carrying altogether.

 

[Xulld]

I haven't checked in a while, but the states that used to allow open carry, had a caveat that if people complained, the carrier could be asked by the police to leave or face some sort of distrubing the peace charge.

These new 'right to open carry' laws seem designed to do away with that.

I don't predict a wave of shootouts in the immediate future. I do expect stupidity and open carry to have a negative effect somewhere down the road.

Just out of curiousity, have these new open carry states made it so that the public at large can carry directly into legislative offices and chambers?

There are laws such as Going armed to the Terror of the public (GATOTP), but they have specific elements which require threatening gestures, vocalizations, or brandishing.

I'll stick with concealed carry thanks (not that I can in Illinois) unless I'l going to the OK Corral. Then I'm on the street howitzer, thanks.

Each to their own, I think its important to allow people to decide how they want to carry. I have a bad back(like really bad, broken twice). So for me its really two-fold. 1) in the waist band holsters hurt my back. 2) the deterrence effect is good in that I probably could not fight off an attacker without sustaining a lot of physical damage to my back and knees. I want quick access, and if the person is sane, I want them to see it, and change there mind.

Also, hoping not to derail here, but I think if Zimmerman had been openly carrying his firearm (its illegal in Florida) Martin would have seen it and not been so quick to offer a beat down. In fact most people who see me carrying first assume I am a police officer. I dress nice, I have good manners and you add that with the firearm they usually ask if I am a police officer, to which I always explain I am not.

 

[crimresearch]

You shouldn't have to, only 13 (12 now?) states have open carried outlawed, check the others for statistics about persons openly carrying a firearm being attacked for their firearm. I can find none. I find one case where a person was held at gun point and handed over the firearm. So its not that it cant happen, but that rational, sane people tend to find attacking a well armed person a risky proposition. If you fail to get the jump, then its a very risky gun fight. (Police are often targeted, but it has been shown its less about the OC'd weapon and more about the animosity toward the police)

Most criminals who want guns will break into unoccupied homes to get them. 42% of homes have guns, and when no one is home you are unopposed and with little risk.

The FBI's studies where not just asking lifer killers in prisons what they would do, they also collected statistics about criminal usage of guns, and found that ALL criminals conceal there weapons prior to the attack, and try to minimize revealing the fact that they are armed. Really common sense IMHO.

Which is why I think NFA is unconstitutional. The loop hole is that its not a ban only a restriction on new arms, but as common usage changes to newer rifles we are now restricted from ownership without a class 3 dealer license. Just a bunch of crap IMHO, but I guess ill take what I can get . . .

. . and that I cannot put a vertical for-grip on a pistol, or chop down my shotgun, or rifle . . . its a bunch of crap. 10 years of prison for having a for-grip on a pistol is nonsense.

This is clearly a ban on innovation, and common arms available to our military was the intention of the verbiage, but its ignored. But this is really offtopic, so I will /Rantoff

You can do all of those things. Cut the barrel down to the allowable length, pay for the licenses, go through the bureaucratic red tape, challenge the idiotic ATF rulings via due process.

Same sort of thing you'd have to do to exercise your 1st amendment rights to start a TV station, or a church.

Nothing 'loophole' about it.

No part of the Constitution is an infinite guarantee of doing anything anyone could ever imagine no matter what the circumstances, with no restrictions or consequences.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Open carry has never been illegal in WA as far as I know. I have read on occasion that some people walking around town with a handgun strapped to their hip have had the police called on them. Something about allegedly disturbing the peace.

Ranb

I am waiting for the NRA to start demonizing Wyatt Earp.

 

[Xulld]

You can do all of those things. Cut the barrel down to the allowable length, pay for the licenses, go through the bureaucratic red tape, challenge the idiotic ATF rulings via due process.

Same sort of thing you'd have to do to exercise your 1st amendment rights to start a TV station, or a church.

Nothing 'loophole' about it.

No part of the Constitution is an infinite guarantee of doing anything anyone could ever imagine no matter what the circumstances, with no restrictions or consequences.

Its a game to ensure the rich are the only ones with access. When NFA was in-acted it was to keep firearms out of the hands of poor undesirables who could not afford the 200 tax stamp. 200 was a lot of money back then and you could either have a cool firearm, or buy one of those nifty horseless carriages.

So in that regard its just a way to make a separate class of citizens with no benefit to society. In many countries silencers are perfectly legal with no government involvement, no statistics show any abuse of that technology, in fact with noise reduction a net environmental benefit is achieved.

The gangs of the 20's scared the crap out of the unprepared law enforcement community who was still using .38 caliber hand guns . . . and nothing else, or maybe a shotgun. The FBI were raiding organized crime rings with automatic weapons and had none themselves.

I understand the impetus, but the act of restricting a persons rights until it is to great a financial burden, or even the act of registration is against the themes of liberty and starts on the slippery slope of tyranny.

The first act of a growing tyranny is to register weapons. NFA is essentially a registration for the cool stuff, and the 200 bucks was a way to keep it out of the hands of the poor.

Also what about automatic weapons? Clearly banning any new imports/manufacture is a ban.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If it is such a right why don't former felons not on parole have these right?

 

[Xulld]

If it is such a right why don't former felons not on parole have these right?

Felonies used to be death sentences. Our modern justice system has expanded the felony to include much less severe crimes. A violent person who has a history of violence is indeed a risk. A person who writes a bad check for a quantity over an arbitrary amount . . . yea not so much.

Currently our justice system treats all felons the same in the sense that they loose there rights, and then have to hire a lawyer and feed the money into the justice system to get those rights back. Shake your money maker!

 

[The Dark Lord]

If it is such a right why don't former felons not on parole have these right?

Felons can't vote in some states either.

 

[crimresearch]

Its a game to ensure the rich are the only ones with access. When NFA was in-acted it was to keep firearms out of the hands of poor undesirables who could not afford the 200 tax stamp. 200 was a lot of money back then and you could either have a cool firearm, or buy one of those nifty horseless carriages.

So in that regard its just a way to make a separate class of citizens with no benefit to society. In many countries silencers are perfectly legal with no government involvement, no statistics show any abuse of that technology, in fact with noise reduction a net environmental benefit is achieved.

The gangs of the 20's scared the crap out of the unprepared law enforcement community who was still using .38 caliber hand guns . . . and nothing else, or maybe a shotgun. The FBI were raiding organized crime rings with automatic weapons and had none themselves.

I understand the impetus, but the act of restricting a persons rights until it is to great a financial burden, or even the act of registration is against the themes of liberty and starts on the slippery slope of tyranny.

The first act of a growing tyranny is to register weapons. NFA is essentially a registration for the cool stuff, and the 200 bucks was a way to keep it out of the hands of the poor.

Also what about automatic weapons? Clearly banning any new imports/manufacture is a ban.

That was pretty much the point of Heller and McDonald.
If Rosie O'Donnell, Diane Feinstein, and Teddy Kennedy can have guns around to defend themselves, then a working class household in DC or Chicago has the same right.

And the history of gun control legislation dovetails with denying equal rights in general to those with less power.

Still doesn't change the fact that no right under the Constitution can ever be literally unlimited.

 

[Xulld]

That was pretty much the point of Heller and McDonald.
If Rosie O'Donnell, Diane Feinstein, and Teddy Kennedy can have guns around to defend themselves, then a working class household in DC or Chicago has the same right.

And the history of gun control legislation dovetails with denying equal rights in general to those with less power.

Still doesn't change the fact that no right under the Constitution can ever be literally unlimited.

I agree and I always appreciate the granularity of perspective offered by your additions. I am sure we are on the same side here in principle.

I am not for anyone being able to get any weapon without restrictions, but I think far too often the government chooses money as the bar, and not any other objective reference such as competence, or a lack of wrong doing.

It seems to have turned into a system of removing everyone's rights first, and then allowing exceptions that can pay there way back in.

Many states are being challenging and moving toward a shall issue CC permit to avoid clashing with Heller, I personally think anyone should be able to carry as they see fit. Sometimes its not what is said by the supreme court, but what goes unsaid that really ends up allowing local governments to "effectively" ban something. DC is a prime example, sure you can get a gun, but the ability to use it for defense is null. To my knowledge this has not been effectively challenged.

If free speech is chilled via heavy handed restriction, then so is the right to bear arms when it must be locked away from its ammo to be legal.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I had not heard about this, yikes. I wonder what it's like to feel you need a gun with you in normal every day life. I grew up with a father who was a gun dealer, I am comfortable around guns and started shooting when I was 5 years old, but I've never felt the need to carry a gun. Maybe when I was in third world countries,... oh and Moscow, the police there were scary.

But here in Oklahoma? I just don't see why people are so compelled to desire this, it seems like over kill. When I was jumped as a 16 year old by a gang of 8 people, I felt like carrying a gun with me for a few weeks. But man am I glad I did not have one when I was actually jumped.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Felonies used to be death sentences. Our modern justice system has expanded the felony to include much less severe crimes. A violent person who has a history of violence is indeed a risk. A person who writes a bad check for a quantity over an arbitrary amount . . . yea not so much.

Currently our justice system treats all felons the same in the sense that they loose there rights, and then have to hire a lawyer and feed the money into the justice system to get those rights back. Shake your money maker!

Clearly we need to hang Martha Stewart.

 

[Xulld]

I had not heard about this, yikes. I wonder what it's like to feel you need a gun with you in normal every day life. I grew up with a father who was a gun dealer, I am comfortable around guns and started shooting when I was 5 years old, but I've never felt the need to carry a gun. Maybe when I was in third world countries,... oh and Moscow, the police there were scary.

But here in Oklahoma? I just don't see why people are so compelled to desire this, it seems like over kill. When I was jumped as a 16 year old by a gang of 8 people, I felt like carrying a gun with me for a few weeks. But man am I glad I did not have one when I was actually jumped.

Unless they had killed you, or maimed you then you would probably feel differently.

Have you never had anyone you know murdered or brutally assaulted were it left them a changed person either emotionally or physically?

If not have you never heard of second hand such things happening? I have never had my house burn down, nor the house of anyone I know, but I still keep a fire extinguisher both in vehicle and home. Do you think that is irrational?

Do you think if you had been carrying an openly holstered firearm clear to see that the people would have jumped you? I dont.

I treat my firearm just like my cell phone, fire extinguisher, and flashlights as emergency tools. Does you no good if left at home.

Whenever I hear someone say something like, well if I lived somewhere more dangerous . . . I always ask, statistically how dangerous does it have to be for you to change your habits? Also, what prevents the most vile of persons from driving some place normally seen as safe?

 

[Cylinder]

When I was jumped as a 16 year old by a gang of 8 people, I felt like carrying a gun with me for a few weeks.

I heard the poultry over there could be pretty hard-ass.

 

[GeeMack]

I heard the poultry over there could be pretty hard-ass.

You just wait until Oklahoma has open carry. Then those chicks and ducks and geese better scurry!

 

[Bikewer]

Open carry would not seem to necessarily be a crime deterrent.. I seem to recall that thing...The Wild West, that was it. Mark Twain remarked that (in the Nevada Territory) if they could tax murder they'd have plenty of money to apply for statehood....

People adjust. There was no lack of armed robbery or homicide in an era when virtually everyone carried a weapon, they just did things a little differently. Overwhelming force, for one thing. Instead of one guy walking into a bank with a note that says "I have a gun", you have half-a-dozen flourishing AKs.

In St. Louis, during the turbulent 60s, St. Louis had a local black activist who discovered that the antiquated city ordinances did not specificallly prohibit open carry. So, to go "in the face" of local politicians and police, he armed his core group with rifles and shotguns that they carried openly (and with impunity) until the city fathers could hastily revise the ordinance....
I have very mixed notions on this sort of thing, from my perspective as a police officer. I dont' see any reason to prohibit concealed carry for individuals who are suitably qualified.
This to date has not been very problematic. Across the nation, there have been very few "incidents" of improper shootings or people going for their guns after a traffic accident, as was predicted by the "anti" folks.
Indeed, many said the streets would run with blood.... Hasn't happend.

However, to my knowledge (and according to the published research that was in the local media as Missouri debated their own concealed-carry law) there has not been much effect on crime either. For the most part, "street criminals", muggers, purse-snatchers and the like, are pretty savvy at picking victims who will not resist.
They look for individuals who are distracted, alone, not paying attention, and who look like they will be easily intimidated.
Carrying weapons would have little effect on any other type of crime... It's not going to stop car theft or burglary or corporate malfeasance....

Just my opinion, but it seems to me the majority of the "open carry" folks are practicing the same "in your face" thing that our boy "Rap" Brown was doing back in the 60s. They are generally upset with government and the "authorities", and are showing off.
YouTube is full of filmed confrontations between open-carry guys and police, obviously set up since a film crew just happens to be on hand....
We have seen these folks show up at political rallies and similar events, usually creating quite a stir from those responsible for security and getting a lot of media attention.
Seems rather childish to me.

Just a word about crime... I read a book by a local UMSL professor some years ago about the root causes of crime. (at least, his take on same) He mentioned that though the average citizen thinks of "street" crime when they talk of crime and it's this sort of crime that they fear and arm themselves against, the actual monetary losses annually from this sort of crime is the tiniest percentage point of the losses from fraud, "white-collar" crime, and all those related things.
Enron nearly bankrupted the state of California, for instance. Ivan Boesky stole so much that when told to pay 100,000,000 in punitive fines, he was able to write a check and come out of his country-club prison to enjoy the remainder of his fortune.....

 

[AvalonXQ]

Open carry would not seem to necessarily be a crime deterrent.. I seem to recall that thing...The Wild West, that was it. Mark Twain remarked that (in the Nevada Territory) if they could tax murder they'd have plenty of money to apply for statehood...

A lot of people seem to disagree with that stereotype. From quick Googling, one source claims that the Old West murder rate was 1 in 100,000 -- significantly less than in modern anti-gun cities like DC.