Posted on Feb 11, 2015
Gun enthusiasts and owners: What are your thoughts on Constitutional carry, concealed carry and open carry? Which do you prefer and why?
63.1K
492
315
32
32
0
(This is meant to be a fun debate)
There have been some studies that suggest majority of crime is opportunity based (aka crime of opportunity theory). Where criminals target those that are perceived as weaker or less likely to fight back. Giving people the means to not only protect themselves but show that they are not afraid to protect themselves may help to reduce crime rates.
There have been countless stories that have backed the prevention of crime when there is an armed citizen present (either in the home or a concealed carry). I can see where some may be concerned about this because just because you can "buy" a gun doesn't mean you know how to "use" a gun. However, some communities that are proud gun zones have less crime and actively educate their children in gun safety as well as proper handling/use.
If you are pro open carry do you think there should be a limitation on the type of firearm that can be carried based on location (e.g. public areas - handguns; hunting/lawful Target Shooting/etc. - all forms; private property - all forms; etc.)?
Edited to include statistics for carrying loaded vs. unloaded:
According to the FBI, "the average gunfight lasts 4 seconds and 95% of gunfights happen within 7 yards." So unless you can load, point and shoot a gun under 4 seconds and within 7 yards (or less if they are rushing at you with a weapon of their own) then you are essentially screwed. You might as well just run around with a baseball bat slung over your shoulder as it would be more effective.
There have been some studies that suggest majority of crime is opportunity based (aka crime of opportunity theory). Where criminals target those that are perceived as weaker or less likely to fight back. Giving people the means to not only protect themselves but show that they are not afraid to protect themselves may help to reduce crime rates.
There have been countless stories that have backed the prevention of crime when there is an armed citizen present (either in the home or a concealed carry). I can see where some may be concerned about this because just because you can "buy" a gun doesn't mean you know how to "use" a gun. However, some communities that are proud gun zones have less crime and actively educate their children in gun safety as well as proper handling/use.
If you are pro open carry do you think there should be a limitation on the type of firearm that can be carried based on location (e.g. public areas - handguns; hunting/lawful Target Shooting/etc. - all forms; private property - all forms; etc.)?
Edited to include statistics for carrying loaded vs. unloaded:
According to the FBI, "the average gunfight lasts 4 seconds and 95% of gunfights happen within 7 yards." So unless you can load, point and shoot a gun under 4 seconds and within 7 yards (or less if they are rushing at you with a weapon of their own) then you are essentially screwed. You might as well just run around with a baseball bat slung over your shoulder as it would be more effective.
Gun Control
Concealed Carry
2nd Amendment
Open Carry
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 102
1
1
0
I think that the idea of having the right to carry across state lines into other states with a permit is a real good idea once all the laws are standardized to the point of being able to enforce the issues it will create with law enforcement. However, being in a state that is less friendly on gun issues well its likely that Im going to carry anyway, and what people dont know well shouldnt hurt them. I think the new law is a good idea for people that legally carry. I dont think that there should be many limits on places, types of guns or any such thing as private property when it pertains to a personal choice of self defense, especially if your concealed, nobody should know, and a responsible gun owner will avoid situations that could produce conflict. Open carry also has drawbacks as well as advantages, I just think that since this particular right to carry a firearm and the nessesity of having to have some kind of permit to do so is actually a money grab for the right you have for free. Its unlikely that criminals are going to annonce they have a gun until its too late, well the same rule should apply to citizens that abide by the laws as well, and criminals dont have a permit they just carry anyway. Its a great idea, however concealed carry laws tend to be restrictive and is actually a measure of gun control that is not seen as such, concealed carry laws vary from state to state, and even if you have a permit there are certain places that are not allowed to carry that defeats the total purpose of the idea of concealed carry. So pick your posion I say, and if you happen to be a law abiding citizen you should not be penalized for either method you should choose no matter where you find yourself, as long as your not breaking any laws or causing any problems carry where you like, what you like and how you like. Im not sure why there would even need to be some sort of permit or license to excersise your constitutional rights but hey if you have to keep up with the times and changes well its overall a good idea.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
MSG Robert Mills, you might not have to worry if The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015, which was introduced by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (TX) gets passed. The legislation would respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.
Source: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150212/nra-backs-constitutional-concealed-carry-bill-in-us-senate.
Source: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150212/nra-backs-constitutional-concealed-carry-bill-in-us-senate.
NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate
On behalf of its five-million members, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced its support for The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015, which was introduced today by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (TX). The legislation would respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state...
(1)
(0)
MSG Robert Mills
thats interesting, that is a no stance position if Ive ever heard one lol, guess it is all subjective in the reality of carrying a weapon or not. I wonder is that anything like I would choose to fight or decide not to fight depending if I can win or if I think I might lose kind of question, open or closed really does not matter. Acceptance or support of permits really does not matter, and in that one instance in those 4-6 seconds when you have to decide constitutional or not really doesnt matter either. a interesting stance, although I support both versions Sir, to each may be his own I suppose. I prefer the ambush myself lol..
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Regarding constitutional carry, I believe our Constitution spells out very clearly that our right to own and carry weapons shall not be messed with by the government.
Regarding concealed carry vs. open carry, some say that openly carrying gives away a tactical advantage to a bad guy. The counter argument is that by openly carrying you discourage a bad guy from messing with you. Both arguments have merit. But until someone can point me to an actual incident where it is clear openly carrying gave away tactical advantage to a bad guy, I'll give the open carry argument more merit as long as you're not one of those yayhoos walking into Starbucks with a AR or AK strapped to your back, trying to upset people. Having said all that, I think people should be able to carry in the manner they feel comfortable with.
Regarding concealed carry vs. open carry, some say that openly carrying gives away a tactical advantage to a bad guy. The counter argument is that by openly carrying you discourage a bad guy from messing with you. Both arguments have merit. But until someone can point me to an actual incident where it is clear openly carrying gave away tactical advantage to a bad guy, I'll give the open carry argument more merit as long as you're not one of those yayhoos walking into Starbucks with a AR or AK strapped to your back, trying to upset people. Having said all that, I think people should be able to carry in the manner they feel comfortable with.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Cpl Mark McMiller, previously in the thread Sgt Martin V. provided an article that supported his argument for concealed versus open that I found interesting. He provided the following article:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/08/i-like-your-gun-open-carry-practitioner-gets-unfortunate-late-night-surprise/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/08/i-like-your-gun-open-carry-practitioner-gets-unfortunate-late-night-surprise/
‘I Like Your Gun’: Open-Carry Practitioner Gets Unfortunate Late-Night Surprise
William Coleman III was open carrying a handgun he'd just purchased hours earlier when he got an unfortunate surprise. The 21-year-old was chatting with his cousin just after 2 a.m. Saturday on a street in Gresham, Oregon, when aman approached them and asked Coleman for a...
(2)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Thank you. That's definitely an actual incident that I was talking about. However, I wouldn't call a .22 pistol much of a fighting handgun. I think Mr. Coleman probably didn't know much about handguns or he would have been carrying something more potent if he felt the need to carry for self defense. Whether that played into the bad guy's frame of mind, who knows.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
It has been my experience that those who choose to open carry, generally, aren't trained very well. This kid in the article obviously was not tactically aware of his surroundings. I think that anyone who chooses to carry a firearm should also be trained in its use. The impression that I got from this article was that he was not. Firearms training isn't just about the marksmanship aspect. It's also about knowing what your target is, where your target is, what is around your target, etc.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
The problem with requiring training is that that is just another roadblock anti-gun politicians will throw in front of people just trying to defend themselves. Case in point: Washington, DC, after getting spanked by SCOTUS for their gun ban, changed the law to allow citizens to have firearms for self defense as long as they jumped through a ridiculous and onerous line of hoops; one of which was that they had to complete training within DC, but there were no trainers or training facilities available in DC
and DC wanted to charge trainers something like $500 to apply for a training license. It took months to get a trainer in place. Even today, after you've jump through all the hoops and paid the ridiculous price of the application, the anti-gun DC police chief gets final say on whether you can have a gun or not. People should not have to jump through hoops to exercise a God given Constitutional right.
and DC wanted to charge trainers something like $500 to apply for a training license. It took months to get a trainer in place. Even today, after you've jump through all the hoops and paid the ridiculous price of the application, the anti-gun DC police chief gets final say on whether you can have a gun or not. People should not have to jump through hoops to exercise a God given Constitutional right.
(0)
(0)
PO1, we need to have Constitutional carry (unlicensed/unpermitted carry of both handguns and long guns) in every State, district, and territory of the United States.
Anytime someone says that a given location (a school, a church, a mall, whatever) should be somewhere that guns are prohibited, what they are really saying is that they think that location is somewhere that law-abiding citizens should be disarmed, and that criminals and nutjobs should have a hazard-free workplace there.
Regarding private businesses and such that may want to prohibit firearms: that is their own business. I do think that doing so is incredibly irresponsible, particularly if they do not provide their own armed security as well as an actual metal-detector checkpoint to enforce their rules. Regardless, businesses that choose to disarm their customers should be held strictly liable for deaths, injuries, and losses that occur on their property as a result of their misguided policy.
Regarding training, certainly you should get firearms training before carrying a firearm, if at all possible. However, certainly the government should not make training a requirement for carrying a firearm. Doing so is yet another well-intentioned infringement on the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Regarding personal carry preferences, I openly carry a Glock 19 everywhere I can.
Concealed carry is about defense. Open carry is about defense, and deterrence, and freedom, and taking firearms ownership and carry out of the closet.
Anytime someone says that a given location (a school, a church, a mall, whatever) should be somewhere that guns are prohibited, what they are really saying is that they think that location is somewhere that law-abiding citizens should be disarmed, and that criminals and nutjobs should have a hazard-free workplace there.
Regarding private businesses and such that may want to prohibit firearms: that is their own business. I do think that doing so is incredibly irresponsible, particularly if they do not provide their own armed security as well as an actual metal-detector checkpoint to enforce their rules. Regardless, businesses that choose to disarm their customers should be held strictly liable for deaths, injuries, and losses that occur on their property as a result of their misguided policy.
Regarding training, certainly you should get firearms training before carrying a firearm, if at all possible. However, certainly the government should not make training a requirement for carrying a firearm. Doing so is yet another well-intentioned infringement on the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Regarding personal carry preferences, I openly carry a Glock 19 everywhere I can.
Concealed carry is about defense. Open carry is about defense, and deterrence, and freedom, and taking firearms ownership and carry out of the closet.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I prefer concealed carry personally. Yes a criminal will typically pick the easier, softer target. However, if I happen to be in this target they have decided is soft, and the first thing they see is my gun, they will open fire whether they initially intended to kill or not. I would much rather they realize I am armed in the form a 1500 ft/s surprise.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I definately support open carry on hand guns and hunting rifles. As far as concealed carry that should be your preference and as long as you get the proper training. I also think that educating our younger generation on parctice shooting and hunting may benefit our society.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would support open carry in TX but not likely to happen. But as a CHL holder I prefer concealed. Buy, why advertise. At one time in TX people carried rifles in their trucks gun racks and it was no bid deal.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Is there a difference between Open Carry and Constitutional Carry? Is it just the requirement of a permit?
(1)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
MAJ Carl Ballinger, sir, i'm not saying that a citizen SHOULD have to do anything to satisfy the government. I believe in constitutional carry. I believe all citizens who have not broken the law before should have the right to own and carry. I'm saying right now, according to my state law, I personally have to satisfy requirements IOT conceal carry. If that law was changed to allow for open constitutional carry, I would support that. I support the law, and if I so happen to live in a state that says I have to have a permit, I'm going to do so, because I would rather not break the law. Doing so will not get anything accomplished, other than headaches for me for the rest of my life.
(0)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
1LT (Join to see) The MAJ's point (and one I agree with) is there should be no law requiring a permit in the first place. Constitutional rights are assumed us when we are born or made citizens of this country. You would think that serving in the military would even let us get beyond that requirement, but it will not. The fact that there is a law in the first place is my issue.
(1)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
CPT Zachary Brooks, Sir, I completely agree with both of you. Nowhere in the 2nd does it say we have to do anything to satisfy any type of requirement. I agree wholeheartedly with both you and MAJ Carl Ballinger, all I'm saying, is that as long as there IS a law in place stating that I have to do something to conceal my firearm, I'm going to follow that law. To do otherwise is dumb, as well as a career killer. There are other ways to get the law changed, which I am doing, btw, than to open carry to make a political statement. That has been done in my state multiple times, and nothing has come of it.
(1)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
MAJ Carl Ballinger, I am a proud member of the NRA, sir. And i've talked to my senators and congressmen about it, attended the open forums and debates, and have given money to groups that are combating the law. Which i believe all responsible gun owners should do. Until then, I will continue to follow the law and carry my concealed with a permit.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have always owned guns and have had carry permits for the 35+ years. Raised 6 children and ALWAYS taught them complete gun safety weather on the range, at home, hunting, etc. To me there are 2 reasons to take a gun out.......either to use it or clean it, no exceptions. It is not for show!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I support a persons right to carry how they prefer in public. Not that everyone should carry, but I think they have a right too (with exception of those that are legally insane/incompetent or felons).
Practically; concealed carry in urban/suburban areas and open carry in rural areas.
As for what you should carry, I don't believe in a legal limitation, however I think as a productive member of society a person should carry what is practical (just because you could open carry an AR-15 while walking around in a mall, doesn't mean you should.)
Practically; concealed carry in urban/suburban areas and open carry in rural areas.
As for what you should carry, I don't believe in a legal limitation, however I think as a productive member of society a person should carry what is practical (just because you could open carry an AR-15 while walking around in a mall, doesn't mean you should.)
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I usually transport my ARs in a guitar gig bag. Less obtrusive in the car and when I'm loading/unloading them. I could easily walk around a mall with it on my back and no one would know the difference. No need to advertise.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have been a law abiding citizen all my life. I spent 39 years in an Army uniform to protect your rights and freedom. I believe we should all have the right to responsibly keep and bear arms. I believe we have the right to open carry and, with a permit, concealed carry. Responsibly means mentally competent, law abiding, properly trained and swearing to the same oath as the rest of us military.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google