Got a call from Consumer Affairs...

[Decoligny]

I wonder if there were more than 1 of you oc'ing at the same time would things me different? I haven't read the blog but it seems to me that the clothing you wear could have an impact on the way the public reacts to seeing a firearm not being worn by a person in uniform.

I have a resident ccw in NV and alot of the le guys there will oc out of uniform, they look like they are instructors or something. A set of kackis and a collor'd polo type shirt. They still dress like cops even put of uniform.

I'd say dressing properly could only help.

I'd say dressing properly could only hide us from view.

"Proper dress" just makes folks think that you are an off duty LEO. Those of us who carry for more than just personal protection, i.e. we also carry as a political statement and an educational tool, do not want to have everyone automatically assume that we are off duty LEO. We want people to realize that we are just law abiding citizens, just like they are, and that we can legally carry a gun, just like they can, and it's not going to jump out of its holster and start shooting people.

[p7m8jg]

naw, they'll just send him to GITMO

Isn't Obama closing GITMO and turning it into a nightclub for people willing to pay $1 million dollars to be an Illinois Senator???

[pullnshoot25]

I wonder if there were more than 1 of you oc'ing at the same time would things me different? I haven't read the blog but it seems to me that the clothing you wear could have an impact on the way the public reacts to seeing a firearm not being worn by a person in uniform.

I have a resident ccw in NV and alot of the le guys there will oc out of uniform, they look like they are instructors or something. A set of kackis and a collor'd polo type shirt. They still dress like cops even put of uniform.

I'd say dressing properly could only help.

That say I was wearing a black collared shirt, blue jeans and black shoes and my normal black holster. I had just gotten out of work and was trying to buy new shoes for work.

[pullnshoot25]

I'm just posting my opinion, but I would let it go. You went to mall OCing and mall security asked you to wait and not make any sudden movement till the police arrive, they didn't physically restrain and by your own blog, they conversed with you, for the 15 minutes. You then went on you merry way after another 15 minutes with the police, which is to be expected if anyone saw you out and called the police on you, so I do no include that in total time. How many times do you think they have had to deal with OC in that mall? This was probably the 1st and everyone involved was probably nervous, if not scared at some point. You have to realize not everyone knows all the ins and out of the gun laws(we know that LEO don't) and many people are just scared of guns. You have to be respectful of that.

Like I said you like to push the limits and have posted about other incidents in which you knowingly tried to see how far you can concerning private property.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=98012

So sometimes both sides can go too far. You weren't hurt or really even inconvenienced any more than you should expect when OCing.

All this is my opinion, you do what you want. I would let it go and move on.

They did not ask me, they told me. It was not a request, it was a demand. There is a very distinct difference between ask and tell.

No shoppers called the cops, the security guards did that. The shoppers have been anything but nervous about my OC activities, including but not limited to when I stood at a cell phone booth for 25-30min talking about guns with the employees and one patron.

The fact remains is that no matter how nervous they are about OC or anything else, they still don't have the legal standing to detain unless it is under the Merchant Law and that is only if I am shoplifting OR they can perform a citizen's arrest if I am committing a misdemeanor/felony. Since I committed neither shoplifting nor a misdemeanor/felony, they are not allowed to do what they did. Since they don't have qualified immunity like an LEO has, that means they can doubt the validity of my actions all they want but until I actually break the law they cannot lay a hand on me (correct me if I am wrong in this instance)

Like I keep saying, they are not cops, they are still normal people.

[pullnshoot25]

Like I said you like to push the limits and have posted about other incidents in which you knowingly tried to see how far you can concerning private property.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=98012

In science, a lot of work is accomplished by disproving. Having seen hearsay about Costco's rules, I decided to test it out. Nothing wrong with it and I came to find my disproving quest to be disproven.

On the other hand, my brother has OC'd into Costco several times AFAIK and on several of those occasions he may have been wearing his kilt. Talk about dressing appropriately.

[Decoligny]

Now why would you call mall security "idiot mall ninjas"?

I call them idiots because they decided to detain an armed individual when they were unarmed, and the armed individual was deemed to be dangerous enough to need to Police to come and "take him away". If they were so alarmed, why didn't they just wait for the police instead of coming against an "armed gunman" with a pressurized bottle of Tabasco Sauce.

They're providing security for a private place of business.

No, they are providing "asset theft prevention" for a private place of business. Security implies that they are providing protection of some sort. They are not.

They're doing their job.

No, their job is to prevent theft. They are there to stop shoplifters and to detain people who STEAL stuff. They are not there to detain law abiding citizens.

No firearm openly carried belongs there, unless it's on the belt of a LEO. Wouldn't you agree?.

Hell No. Firearms belong on the hips of every law abiding citizen who chooses to be a citizen and not a subject.

And for that matter, why isn't the OP an "OC idiot"? He's walking onto private property without the owner's permission to OC.

He is exercising his RIGHTS. Do you ever speak on private property without the owner's permission? Sounds silly doesn't it. Well 1st Amendment, or 2nd Amendment, they are both RIGHTS. The OP called and asked if OC was allowed, he was told it was. He looked at the entrances to determine in the Mall was posted as a "No Guns Allowed" property, it wasn't. Was he supposed to make an appointment with the Mall Owner to sit face to face and request permission? I think not.

If he's so in fear of his own life, maybe he should just stay home, bar the front door, and keep all his guns and ammo in front of him.

You have a LTC. You carry a gun. You must be so in fear for your life that you have resort to carrying a gun. Why aren't you home with the door barred?

[AaronHorrocks]

Timothy McVeigh (sp) was a blonde homegrown terrorist if I recall correctly. Hair color also has nothing to do with someones intentions. I know your intentions in your eyes have nothing to do with anything illegal but other peoples perception of you in and outside your community may be different.

I think you need to brush up on what a "terrorist" is. Timothy McVeigh was probably insane, but was under the impression that the U.S. Government was out to get him, (Which to a degree is true for all of us). Tim was past his breaking point. He specifically targeted Goverment buildings, not civilians such as in busses, World Trade Towers, Pizza parlors, street corners, or trains.

[CSACANNONEER]

I call them idiots because they decided to detain an armed individual when they were unarmed, and the armed individual was deemed to be dangerous enough to need to Police to come and "take him away". If they were so alarmed, why didn't they just wait for the police instead of coming against an "armed gunman" with a pressurized bottle of Tabasco Sauce.



No, they are providing "asset theft prevention" for a private place of business. Security implies that they are providing protection of some sort. They are not.



No, their job is to prevent theft. They are there to stop shoplifters and to detain people who STEAL stuff. They are not there to detain law abiding citizens.



Hell No. Firearms belong on the hips of every law abiding citizen who chooses to be a citizen and not a subject.



He is exercising his RIGHTS. Do you ever speak on private property without the owner's permission? Sounds silly doesn't it. Well 1st Amendment, or 2nd Amendment, they are both RIGHTS. The OP called and asked if OC was allowed, he was told it was. He looked at the entrances to determine in the Mall was posted as a "No Guns Allowed" property, it wasn't. Was he supposed to make an appointment with the Mall Owner to sit face to face and request permission? I think not.



You have a LTC. You carry a gun. You must be so scared that you have to carry a gun. Why aren't you home with the door barred?

You have NO IDEA of what a private security officer can legally do! A mall rent a cop's job has nothing to do with theft of merchandise inside of stores. their job is to provide a false sense of security to shoppers and mall employees alike and to protect their employeer's property, the mall while observing and reporting. That does not include anything that is owned by private stores within the mall. The land owners and bussiness owners DO HAVE THE RIGHT to post a "no guns" policy and/or ask an OCer to leave. The Ninja's did not do that! The bottom line is these mall ninja's broke the law by detaining the OP. Even if his actions where criminal, the mall ninja's can only detain him for theft so, they illegally detained, imprisioned, kidknapped, kept him against his will and tourtured him (I bet he really needed to take a leak). On the other hand, the OP did not break any laws and, even though he had the means to phyisically defend himself against these crimes instead, he chose to fight his battle peacably and go through the legal system. Now, you are trying to make him feel that his legal actions were wrong and the out right criminal behavior which violated his civil rights were justified. I'm sure glad I don't live in your world!

EDIT: After posting this, I realized that I wasn't able to figure out how to qoute the entire post. Some of my comments were obviously aimed at "massameet's" thoughts.

[dadoody]

I think you need to brush up on what a "terrorist" is. Timothy McVeigh was probably insane, but was under the impression that the U.S. Government was out to get him, (Which to a degree is true for all of us). Tim was past his breaking point. He specifically targeted Goverment buildings, not civilians such as in busses, World Trade Towers, Pizza parlors, street corners, or trains.

Wow.

I know this is a board for fellow gun nuts, but wow. Tim McVeigh isn't a terrorist in your opinion. He was just some guy who "past his breaking point" and decided to bomb a federal building. Because it was Federal, it wasn't terrorism. Never mind that he also killed a bunch of kids in daycare.

Just wow. Am I really associated with you people?

[Arkalius]

I'm surprised at how unsupportive some people here are of pullnshoot. I understand the desire for due diligence in vetting his story, but I think it's safe to say he wasn't doing anything wrong, and should be commended on his bravery for making the statement that UOC makes.

It's safe to say that carrying an unloaded weapon openly on the hip isn't really for protection, as it is unloaded. The only real protection it could grant you is deterring someone from attacking because they see the gun. The purpose is to make a statement. One of the main reasons our gun rights continue to be eroded is because most people have no exposure to the responsible and safe use of firearms, and people tend to fear what they don't understand. These security guards are such people. They see a man with a gun on his hip and immediately assume he is up to no good. Such is the perception of many people in the country, and that is the problem. We need to train society away from this line of thinking and one of the best ways we can do that is to let them see responsible, law-abiding people walking around with guns on their hips. There are many more good people with guns than bad and the more people that realize this, the less likely they are to support anti-gun laws.

And pullnshoot, it's nice to know that not everyone becomes uncomfortable around you while you carry. Good luck dealing with this issue, and keep fighting the good fight with your open carry.

[dadoody]

You have NO IDEA of what a private security officer can legally do! A mall rent a cop's job has nothing to do with theft of merchandise inside of stores. their job is to provide a false sense of security to shoppers and mall employees alike and to protect their employeer's property, the mall while observing and reporting. That does not include anything that is owned by private stores within the mall. The land owners and bussiness owners DO HAVE THE RIGHT to post a "no guns" policy and/or ask an OCer to leave. The Ninja's did not do that! The bottom line is these mall ninja's broke the law by detaining the OP. Even if his actions where criminal, the mall ninja's can only detain him for theft so, they illegally detained, imprisioned, kidknapped, kept him against his will and tourtured him (I bet he really needed to take a leak). On the other hand, the OP did not break any laws and, even though he had the means to phyisically defend himself against these crimes instead, he chose to fight his battle peacably and go through the legal system. Now, you are trying to make him feel that his legal actions were wrong and the out right criminal behavior which violated his civil rights were justified. I'm sure glad I don't live in your world!

That's actually true. A security guard simply is a person with the right to make a private person's arrest based on whatever.

I was a "loss prevention agent" back when I was 19 - dressed like everyone else and caught shoplifters, but even we were allowed to arrest for other offenses in the store.

The security guards do have the right to stop you on private property, but they were should have called local law enforcement.

I'm fine with what you did to show open carry, but from the guards point of view - they never know what nut comes in. They should have either been armed or had the local PD come in.

[PzKfW]

To PullnShoot:

The bottom line is, whether your OCing affects you (PullnShoot) personally or not, we all benefit from you doing so.

People who try to dissuade you from OCing by ridiculing your actions, maturity level (you seem very levelheaded to me), or reactions to unlawful situations - are only doing so for one reason...





Because they wish they could do the same. Keep it up, brother.

[dadoody]

I'm surprised at how unsupportive some people here are of pullnshoot. I understand the desire for due diligence in vetting his story, but I think it's safe to say he wasn't doing anything wrong, and should be commended on his bravery for making the statement that UOC makes.

It's safe to say that carrying an unloaded weapon openly on the hip isn't really for protection, as it is unloaded. The only real protection it could grant you is deterring someone from attacking because they see the gun. The purpose is to make a statement. One of the main reasons our gun rights continue to be eroded is because most people have no exposure to the responsible and safe use of firearms, and people tend to fear what they don't understand. These security guards are such people. They see a man with a gun on his hip and immediately assume he is up to no good. Such is the perception of many people in the country, and that is the problem. We need to train society away from this line of thinking and one of the best ways we can do that is to let them see responsible, law-abiding people walking around with guns on their hips. There are many more good people with guns than bad and the more people that realize this, the less likely they are to support anti-gun laws.

And pullnshoot, it's nice to know that not everyone becomes uncomfortable around you while you carry. Good luck dealing with this issue, and keep fighting the good fight with your open carry.

+1 : )

[Vin496]

In science, a lot of work is accomplished by disproving. Having seen hearsay about Costco's rules, I decided to test it out. Nothing wrong with it and I came to find my disproving quest to be disproven.

On the other hand, my brother has OC'd into Costco several times AFAIK and on several of those occasions he may have been wearing his kilt. Talk about dressing appropriately.

And that's the thing with OC, you are in uncharted territory in a way, what is cool at one store one day may be not the next. Some people freak others could care less.

You seem bent on really showing these guys that they are in the wrong, fine I can't convince you different, but remember they are people and they were faced with an odd situation on that day, and in these paranoid times, maybe you can see why. If you want to educate people about OC that's one thing, but if you want to show them you are right and they were wrong, well that's ego.
As for your brother, I bet they though he was in costume, so the gun if they even noticed it over the "skirt" wasn't an issue. Again most people probably don't realize a gun has nothing to do with a kilt.

[45DAVID1]

I think you need to brush up on what a "terrorist" is. Timothy McVeigh was probably insane, but was under the impression that the U.S. Government was out to get him, (Which to a degree is true for all of us). Tim was past his breaking point. He specifically targeted Goverment buildings, not civilians such as in busses, World Trade Towers, Pizza parlors, street corners, or trains.

I thought I would be a nice guy and give you a definition on why I consider McVeigh a "homegrown terrorist".

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.