open carry. what's the point.

[BigBamBoo]

................

[Heavy_Grinder]

That is the problem...and I am guilty or it too...people judging people buy their looks.

Heck...my best friend is a famous rapper...and I tend to dress kinda thugish at times....plus I am a pretty big guy...6'2", 215lbs, workout 3-4 times a week,shave my head, and have a fooman and goat, etc....so if I opened carried someone might get scared that a big,mean looking, "gangsta" is walking around with a gun.

Next thing I am getting messed with and having to explain how "its my right"...to the po po in front of my kids,etc.

Again....not my thing personaly but if thats your thing then more power to ya.

My point exactly.

[halifax]

And one that will likely be invalidated by the post-Heller courts, and in the end force the sheeple to choose between scary open carry and somewhat less scary CCW permits.

If interpreted in the strictest sense, Scalia only said laws restricting firearms (esp., handguns) in one's home were unconstitutional. He even left open the "carry" question. Didn't he?

[MudCamper]

Open Carry. What's the point in carrying a firearm in open public (like to the grocery store or something).

Three reasons:

1 - for most Californians, it's the only way to carry a firearm legally, as CCW permits are unatainable

2 - to protest discretionary CCW issuance policies

3 - to reeducate the public and the LE community - As most here are aware, there is an incorrect/misplaced fear/hatred/stigma attached to guns. When peaceful law-abiding people openly carry firearms, it forces people to reevaluate those beliefs.

For those of you that do carry openly, can you honestly say that if you see something go down, without a shadow of a doubt, will you use your open carry firearm to protect yourself or other people.

That decision really depends on the circumstances, and it's the same question you could ask any CCW holder.

12031 allows for it though:

(j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.

[ChibiPaw]

My eyes! Make it go away! X_X

[Heavy_Grinder]

hilarious, I set this whole thread up to culminate in showing that one particular pic. Have a good weekend guys.

Btw. To you open carry guys. More power to ya.

[MudCamper]

To make light of this whole Open carry thing.

Self-portrait, Heavy_Grinder?

[Heavy_Grinder]

Self-portrait, Heavy_Grinder?

Oh h3llz naw. I found that pic on failblog.org, and I had to post it here on calguns.

[Matt C]

If interpreted in the strictest sense, Scalia only said laws restricting firearms (esp., handguns) in one's home were unconstitutional. He even left open the "carry" question. Didn't he?

If you have not already, you need to actually read it.

Opinion of the Court

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to
“carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete
Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford
English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).
When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning
that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—
confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.
(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We
think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase
implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose
of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes
participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude
that this natural meaning was also the meaning that
“bear arms” had in the 18th century.

Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

[deleted by PC police]

I don't open carry, hell I barely carried concealed when I was licensed in a free state but I like that people do, the more firearms there are out there the more people will get used to them.

[BigBamBoo]

...............

[halifax]

If you have not already, you need to actually read it.

Opinion of the Court

Yes, I did read it. I enjoyed every word of it. The last paragraph of the majority opinion, however, was a let down. After all the good and right things Scalia said, he left open way too much to possible legislation except "...the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used in self-defense in the home"

I'm just too much of a pessimist to believe all those gun-hating judges out there are going to change overnight and join the Scalia fan club.

I really, REALLY hope I'm wrong.

[fleegman]

Probably because it's not against the law. I'm fairly certain the first unintended consequence of this will be a another new anti-gun law.

Goody, just another second-amendment-infringing-law I will choose to ignore!

[BigKevLA]

I think most people that want to OC just want some attention. I carry at work and I switched to a smaller firearm to could be concealed better. When people see a gun they get the felling that the environment must be unsafe. I have my firearm if needed but I don't need to show the world.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I think most people that want to OC just want some attention.

I respect them for it. There is something to be said for standing up for your rights. Especially if people think you are wierd or wrong for it.

Now, carrying openly in a holster in your car is legal right? I don't feel like going back in reading the code, but I am pretty sure of it.