An Open Letter to the Open Carry Community: Let’s Talk

Cpl Westin Sandberg - Ditto brother.

I don't know what you understand, but that isn't what I wrote.

"I Don't know what you understand, but that isn't what I wrote."
SSgt, Forgive me, I am just a dumb USMC Grunt vet, and haven't had many English college classes since my separation, but as far as what I've learned thus far; that is not proper English. With all due respect, i sincerely hope i never have you for a Professor of any class.

Cpl Westin Sandberg - Lol

I prefer open carry. Not only is it easier for me, it gives people an opportunity to ask questions. I have had no less than a dozen people come up and ask me if it was even legal to open carry (I am currently in WA). It's astounding how many people are just plain ignorant about their legal rights. Most of the time when I carry concealed it's when I'm entering a place that has "no gun" signs. There are only a few, legally specified, places in WA you cannot carry. I am referring to places like malls and movie theaters. Seeing as almost all mass killings in the last decade have taken place in "gun free zones", I refuse to be a victim of opportunity. No, what I do is not illegal. "No gun" signs DO NOT have force of law in this state. This means that unless I am on private property and asked to leave, in which case if I stayed I could be charged with trespass, I have no legal obligation to disarm. There is no moral high ground in being a victim, so I will limit the possibility of that happening to the utmost of my ability.

SPC Brian Aranda You misrepresent open carries with that statement. I am advocating for RESPONSIBLE open carry. Irresponsibility, no matter whose, hurts that cause. There are good and bad apples on either side. Some are irresponsible because "who's gonna stop me". Others because they don't realize they are doing it. The people who can only say "it's my right", regardless of their intent, are not technically wrong. I mean that in the sense that really that should be all that needs to be said. In reality, they should be able to quote and/or reference the applicable local/state laws. For example, in WA state, RCW series 9.41 deals with firearm law, and 9.41.300 deals specifically with weapons prohibited in certain places. I apologize for seemingly jumping around and rambling. When I reply to anything, I tend to read a little, type my response to it, read some more, type some more, and so on.

SGT (Join to see) Here is another thread you might be interested in.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/concealed-carry-for-cac-holders?page=1&urlhash=310654#310654. Also check out Capt Richard I P. 10 points on that thread.

MSgt (Join to see) This is something I have agreed with since before the Fort Hood shooting. However, I also feel that there should be a universal carry permit/elimination of restrictions on handgun carry for military AND civilians. The patchwork of laws across the country, even within some states, can create a dangerous situation for a gun owner. Just look what almost happened to the PA mom who mistakenly brought her pistol to Jersey. She didn't realize her permit wasn't valid in NJ, and because she declared her pistol when pulled over, she almost got a mandatory 20+ year sentence. And CA has gotten all kinds of stupid with simultaneously having some of the worst gun laws in the nation and yet decided that any kind of theft (including that of a firearm) under $950 (and even carrying said weapon) is a non-arrestable offense.

A follow up to the discussion that MSgt (Join to see) A related gun-rights discussion is available here, come support the right of the armed forces to be armed!: https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Thanks for the feedback, Major.

For me it's hypocritical to say we can't open carry ARs. I did it in many countries but it's not ok here? Either you respect the right 100 percent or not all. It's like "I love the freedom of speech but I don't want people taking about (whatever makes you upset). One you start limiting the rights to make people happy you no longer have rights!

I originally thought the same thing Sir, However, after watching the laws over the last 3-5 years it's amazing how the pendulum is swinging to the right. As in, in support of gun owners to carry when and where they want. Obviously private property depends on the owner, but as a general rule gun laws have loosened dramatically.

Ever Since Heller v. DC. in '08, the gun laws have been getting increasingly looser, and I strongly believe that the open carry of weapons period has helped it.

Why? Because otherwise, you wouldn't have 4 or 5 states that have declared "Constitutional Carry" (aka no permit at all period, carry however you want, wherever you want unless the owner of the property you are on doesn't allow it.)

Some states have even said that if Federal LEOs try to enforce Federal Laws in their state, they will be arrested and charged for abuse of power (or something like that).

Open carry is a great way for the public to see that the average, normal, everyday gun owner is not a fanatic. Is not a terrorist. Is not mentally unstable. and 9 times out of 10, those of us who do open carry are often educating people on their rights.

I had a guy call me out for carrying a weapon illegally. I just explained that it is legal in our state, and he backed down immediately. He now goes on Open Carry walks with me.

Now, I don't carry an AR, or anything like that. I just have an XD(m) 40sw that I carry in a SafariLand levelII holster. If I was just going to be doing a walk, and that's it, then I would carry my AR, slung in front of me. However, I'm usually going to town for errands, and I don't want to keep having to get in and out of the car with a rifle.

Just my $0.02.

Col Joseph Lenertz I agree with you on all but one point: that the constitution grants rights. That is a common misconception. The constitution does not grant rights. That would imply they are granted by government. The constitution RECOGNIZES and GUARANTEES certain rights. The difference is granted means they can be taken away. Recognized means they are natural and inalienable. This can be inferred from the language of the 2A: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Can be interpreted two ways that are both correct: 1) That the right to arms for all citizens is inalienable and 2) by stating that the right shall not be infringed, instead of other wording, implies that the COTUS is merely recognizing, not granting, said right.

Well said. Agreed!

I would agree with you, Colonel Lenertz, EXCEPT that the Constitution does NOT grant rights. It merely recognizes them.

Agreed, see above.

The police carry firearms all the time and you are probably ok with it.

You've probably seen people out of uniform carrying a gun before, maybe with just a badge, and you probably didn't think twice about it.

Have you ever considered that open carry by civilians may bother you just because you didn't grow up around it?

LTC Yinon Weiss Excellent point sir!

LTC Yinon Weiss Open display of weapons by police/military is a statement. It's a statement of use of force if necessary. Do you really think that when you go shopping at Target on Saturday morning that you need to make that statement? I believe in concealed carry for personal defense, but I don't believe that I need to walk around town making any type of statement by displaying my weapon.

MAJ (Join to see) I know you are well educated, but I don't think your education has given you supernatural powers to be able to project statements and intent from inanimate objects.

I know a lot of police officers, and if asked, many would say that their sidearm is making the statement of "I will defend myself and others if necessary." Some others who are carrying off duty (in between jobs) are probably saying "I wish I didn't have to carry this thing!". Some others are probably thinking very different things. It's the person who is doing the thinking, not the gun.

In short, I think it's impossible to have an educated discussion on this topic if you believe that you have the supernatural power to project interpretation of intent and statements from inanimate objects. That is always the problem with the debate on gun control. Some people see a gun as a weapon to harm, and some people always see it as a tool to defend. At the end of the day, what matters is the intent of its user... no matter how it is carried.

I can completely respect that this is a right that you do not feel that you "need" -- and there are many rights that I don't feel that I need to exercise as well. A lot of people don't feel the need to conceal carry either, but hopefully that won't take away your right to do so if you choose to. Fortunately we don't base people's rights in this country on what you and I think that we personally "need."

Nicely written, SSgt Joe.

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca Statistically, people who carry firearms for whatever reason they have are more responsible than police, in terms of following established laws for use of lethal force (which is the same for civilian and police) and marksmanship/accountability of rounds fired. My rebuttal to your second point: tyranny has existed in this country for decades, just not on a level most people are aware of. As I previously stated, Thomas Jefferson defined tyranny as that which is allowed the government but denied the people. Prime relevant example: the LEOSA. The gist of that law is active/retired LEOs are permitted concealed carry wherever they go just because they were LEOs. Another good example is police/military issue 5.56 magazines used to be stamped with "FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY". Yet another example is our elected representatives exempting themselves from the Affordable Care Act. I will stop here because I believe I have made my point and that is a discussion for another thread. I will add I do appreciate your professionalism and that you are willing to admit when it's your own opinion versus trying to force others to conform to your viewpoint.

IMHO many in the CCW world are just as proficient or even better then LE. I believe many have the misconception that LE is better trained weapon wise then the civilian populous who carry. Many who carry have much more range time with their chosen weapon then officers in the field. Yes officers go through courses to learn to handle all types of bad situations but so do many civilians who are armed. Many of the courses out there are offered to any one willing to pay to expand their knowledge and situational awareness. Truthfully the civilian populous best chance of surviving an encounter with those set on doing harm, because time is of the essence, is those that have chose to carry. Again just my humble opinion and .02 worth of babble.

MAJ Robert Petrarca,

I voted down your comment for a few reasons, One you being an officer in the United States Armed Forces, you took an Oath, the same as every other serviceman and woman who have had the honor and the privilege to serve our Nation. I would expect an Officer in our Armed Forces would understand that no matter our opinion we are bound by that Oath, and like it or not the second amendment is part of that. Two, the Second Amendment was written by men wiser than you and I, and the intent was not so people could hunt. Our founders understood that for a people to be free truly free, they would need to be able to protect themselves from government.

Yea I said big bad government, I have no idea what you got your degree in, I do hope you find a use for it when you retire from Service, and I pray you don’t run for public office. I received my degree in western history, what that means is that I studied human history, one of the things I saw as I studied was a repeat over and over, every government no matter their original intention will always end with the government oppressing their own citizens. No matter your personal feeling on this, according to all letters written by those same people who wrote our founding documents the intent was clear. If ever the government becomes a detriment to the citizenry, the people would have the tools to fight back.

Now another reason why I voted down your comment. You state “Never heard of a hunter worth their salt mowing down prey with an AK-47.” I have no idea what you mean by this statement you cannot take a civilian AR-15 or AK and “mow down prey” there is only one setting on a civilian AR and that is semi auto one pull one round. furthermore I feel you do not know firearms all that well, so here is some information you may have over looked, there is no such thing as an Assault Rifle, no AR is not an acronym for assault rifle, it stands for Armalite rifle the original manufacture of the AR platform that hunters call a Modern Sportsman Rifle. Now me personally I own an AR-10 that is chambered in .308 it has a twenty round magazine, and because the state I live in does not have a magazine restriction for hunting so I fill it up, never know there might be a bear close by. Now a .308 is the exact same as 7.62 X 51, same for the AR-15 that is 5.56 and that round is close there is a slight different that requires an extra twist in the barrel to be compatible with the .223.
Your statement shows that you do not feel the American people have the right to protect themselves, it also shows a disregard for the constitution, and that is something that bothers me in a man who is supposed to be a leader of men.

When I took my oath I meant it, I am not saying you don’t, I do not believe for a moment that you would take an oath and not have a understanding of the oath you took.

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca For my down vote reasoning I would have you again read SGT Kevin Gardner s eloquent statement. I could not have expressed it better. Also of all the people I have trained LEO were usually the most ego hampered and dangerous and ordinary housewives the best-open and there to learn how to protect their family.