PDA

View Full Version : UOC, just a question as to purpose


ERdept
06-10-2009, 9:30 PM
I know it's legal to be unloaded and open carry in certain locations.

I also understand that people who do it may be making a statement that it's legal and OK, and brings light to our rights to show that we're not bad people.


But the potential trouble from it seems too great. I can see maliscious prosecution and potentially life threatening result from officers with itchy trigger fingers.

So why do it?

HondaMasterTech
06-10-2009, 10:00 PM
Id rather get shot by a LEO than a criminal.

Dangerous1
06-10-2009, 10:03 PM
It's called taking one for the team! :patriot:

ERdept
06-10-2009, 10:09 PM
OK.

PutTogether
06-10-2009, 11:31 PM
My response may not mean a thing, since I don't UOC, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway.

Beyond being a politcal statement, and beyond being a way to excercise a right, UOC is still above all else, a valid, legal way to carry a gun. We all agree having a gun is a good thing. We all agree following laws is a good thing. The UOC guys do both. The guns they carry may not be in an ideal state of loaded readiness - but they are as close as they can legally come to it. When discussing CCW, we are all quick to point out that "the gun you bring with you is better than the one you leave at home" and I think these guys are the ultimate expression of that.

Forget that it is a statement, and forget the harassment, these guys are carrying guns that they can bring into action within a second or two if their lives, or the lives of their families are threatened. They are doing the right thing, and doing it in spite of social objection.

That is the pragmatic reason - they have a gun instead of not having a gun. I am sure that in and of itself is "worth it" to many.

Now, if one wants to consider the moral/ethical reasons as well..........we could debate all day. But if we all take the "it isn't worth the hassle" approach to different firearm related topics - we certainly wouldn't have 2A incorporation in the 9th circuit, the Heller Decision, or a sunsetted Assault Weapons Ban now would we?

Dangerous1
06-10-2009, 11:39 PM
What are the laws for a UOC citizen to shoot and kill a person committing armed robbery at an establishment that this citizen was visiting?

ERdept
06-11-2009, 12:09 AM
My response may not mean a thing, since I don't UOC, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway.

Beyond being a politcal statement, and beyond being a way to excercise a right, UOC is still above all else, a valid, legal way to carry a gun. We all agree having a gun is a good thing. We all agree following laws is a good thing. The UOC guys do both. The guns they carry may not be in an ideal state of loaded readiness - but they are as close as they can legally come to it. When discussing CCW, we are all quick to point out that "the gun you bring with you is better than the one you leave at home" and I think these guys are the ultimate expression of that.

Forget that it is a statement, and forget the harassment, these guys are carrying guns that they can bring into action within a second or two if their lives, or the lives of their families are threatened. They are doing the right thing, and doing it in spite of social objection.

That is the pragmatic reason - they have a gun instead of not having a gun. I am sure that in and of itself is "worth it" to many.

Now, if one wants to consider the moral/ethical reasons as well..........we could debate all day. But if we all take the "it isn't worth the hassle" approach to different firearm related topics - we certainly wouldn't have 2A incorporation in the 9th circuit, the Heller Decision, or a sunsetted Assault Weapons Ban now would we?



Im not debating it. I'm just asking, why it's done with all the risks. The greatest of which is loss of life in case another person or LEO or bad guy who wants to rob the place you're in thinks your'e a cop.

Then, that loss of life, is someone being taken away from their family. The family that needs them the most.

I support and agree, but am looking for reasons that people do it.



Final question. As I understand you can carry, UNLOADED, in the open, such as on a holster.

But, may you have full mags on that same belt as well, so you can employ the openly carried gun?

cineski
06-11-2009, 8:05 AM
You can have loaded mags that are in a separate pouch on the same belt. They must be out in the open just like the gun.

Casual_Shooter
06-11-2009, 8:22 AM
I support and agree, but am looking for reasons that people do it.


They do it because they are making a statement and accept the risks in making that statement.

PutTogether
06-11-2009, 9:01 AM
[QUOTE=ERdept;2615368]

I support and agree, but am looking for reasons that people do it.



QUOTE]

Again, I would think the reason some would do it is so that they have a gun on them.

Pistolwhipped
06-11-2009, 9:23 AM
The most important reason I believe is the political statement but, I dont believe that everyone does it for that reason. Some do it just to feel the rush of having a pistol on their hip out in public.

ERdept
06-11-2009, 9:29 AM
OK, thanks.

My thought about a gun being there to be used is that it's not at the ready.

But alas, I suppose some gun is better than no gun.

Thanks all.

Pistolwhipped
06-11-2009, 9:35 AM
I see what your saying. But like you said if the sh## hit the fan your in a lot better situation then the guy next to you. My brother carries all the deposits for an insurance company at the end of the day and he keeps his kimber on his hip just incase. Its a mighty strong deterrent at the least.

Liberty1
06-11-2009, 9:56 AM
More at californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org)

IF one is considering this please read EVERYTHING there and do your own research and reading of the PC and case laws.

Know the issues and the risks to personal freedoms and bank accounts. Make an informed decision.

But whatever one does get into the fight (supporting CGF/NRA/OCCCWS/ etc...) and stay in for the win.


As to the purpose of UOC or LOC in unincorporated areas: many of us believe that Open Carry IS the base 2nd Amendment Right. IMOIANAL, states can regulate CC but OC will be found to be the unregulated Federal Right(generally). The SCOTUS in Robertson v Baldwin (and cited in Heller) said as much in dicta. Future court decision may prove me wrong.;)

UOC is as close as some can get to the right and exercising what one can do does bring the issue out for discussion (especially with gunowners who have been used to hiding "in the closet").