4 states, among last holdouts, eye open-carry gun laws

[RamboLiberal]

Four Southern states — Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas — are considering legislation that would allow people to carry handguns openly in a holster.

These generally Second Amendment-friendly states are among the last six holdouts against open carrying of guns. Openly carrying handguns is legal in most states, even those that ban concealed firearms. New York and Florida also bar openly carrying handguns.

The four other states that ban so-called open carry "are extremely gun-friendly. They understand the individual-rights aspect. Yet for whatever reason, the carry laws in these states are restrictive," says John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org, which promotes gun rights.

Most states have strict laws governing concealed weapons. Illinois and Wisconsin ban carrying them entirely, according to the National Rifle Association. Concealing a weapon "was seen in the early days of our nation as something of an unwholesome act. People would bear arms openly," Pierce says.

-----

Grass-roots movements supporting open carry have emerged via Internet and e-mail campaigns, Pierce says. The online Texas petition now has more than 55,000 signatures. OpenCarry.org raised $25,000 through online donations to pay for advertising in Texas, says OpenCarry.org co-founder Mike Stollenwerk.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-11-guns_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[AlinPA]

1. In general I agree with the sentiment held earlier in our nation that hiding guns

may be something of an unwholesome act and that people should carry guns out in the open the way they did in our early days. No problem with security people hiding them for tactical reasons.

[flamin lib]

2. Good idea. That way the evil doers would know who to kill first.nt

[midnight]

3. What type of populations are living there where they need to

conduct day to day business with holsters and guns?

[tburnsten]

4. Not everyone who open carries does it all the time

Especially out west where there are predators like mountain lions or wolves that, however unlikely, do attack humans from time to time, it makes a lot of sense to have an appropriate firearm on you while out in the wild. Generally an appropriate firearm for that setting isn't the same as one you would carry concealed in town.

[dmallind]

7. What type of population would have a problem if they chose to?

Why do we need cars that go above 55mph? Why do we need houses above the size of a jail cell? Why do we need to eat more than gruel and water? Since when should need be the metric?

There is almost no chance of ever needing a firearm, and most of us who have them fully realize this. The small probability of needing one some time however is in situations where it would be very helpful indeed to have one handy.

[RamboLiberal]

8. Here in PA we have a number of gun owners making this an issue

PA is a state you can open carry without a CCW. But majority of population doesn't so even many of the Law Enforcement agencies don't even know this is a law. You can imagine in urban/surburban areas this is freaking some people out. There is grassroots by some gun owners to meet and open carry, i.e. restaurants, and there have been some respones by the cops. There have been a number of challenges against courts and against some county sheriffs have unjustly pulled the CCW licenses of some open carry advocates.

Personally I have a CCW and don't see the need to open carry unless I'd be out on some rural trail or something.

I think people are just pushing their right to carry a gun. I have mixed feelings on this. Even at the gun clubs I've seen mixed feelings about this. Example, there was a huge discussion at one meeting when one member suggested that any of the members working the gun bash who were carrying conceal their gun at the bash cause it made some attendees nervous. I just sat back and enjoyed the argument.

I do wonder if the open carry advocates won't push many establishments to post no weapons signs. It's rare in my area except for the usual places to see a no weapon or no gun sign. But being that a gun openly on the hip makes most of the public nervous it's not unusual for security to be called in a mall or store and the gun owner being politely asked to leave. I wonder if this happens frequently if more places won't start posting no weapons signs thereby putting all of us CCWs in the position of either ignoring the sign or not carrying.

[spin]

10. I used to see a lot of "no gun" signs in Florida...

I would call the establishment and politely explain that the sign had cost them my business. Many other people with concealed carry permits did the same.

Since the owners liked money more than they disliked firearms, it's rare to see those signs today.

But our weapons were concealed. Nobody knew you were carrying. If people could carry weapons openly the signs would probably reappear.

[RamboLiberal]

16. The no gun signs seem to come out when CCW laws are first passed

For instance, as I said it's rare to see in my area of PA (near Pittsburgh). But PA has had CCW for a very long time. In Ohio where law was passed a year or two ago I heard there were a lot of establishments putting the signs out and gun owners doing what you did - telling them if they wanted their business the sign had to come down.

We don't have IHops in my area. One opened a few months ago and they had a no weapons sign, I noticed on my last visit it was no longer posted. I'd bet they got some calls & letters.

[Statistical]

62. Businesses quickly learn that it only hurts businesses

How many people say "I won't shop there because they DONT have a no gun sign"?

Not many. So "no gun signs don't help business".

They also don't protect businesses. If someone intends to rob/kill/assault he/she won't be stopped by a sign.

Slowly businesses (especially chains) learn that a no gun sign can hurt business though.
Pro-gun groups often have lists of businesses and letter writing campaigns.

I personally won't shop somewhere that prohibits firearms even if I am not carrying.
There is always somewhere else to shop that are pro-rights.

[TheWraith]

42. Admittedly, I don't own a pistol, but if I did, I'd never even think about open-carrying.

At least not in any setting other than out in the deep wilderness. To my mind open-carrying would simply attract way too much attention of the wrong kind, whether that's police, security guards, people staring, or more malicious types who would think if they can see it, they could grab it.

[yay]

46. It's kind of like a condom

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I can think of a few example where someone could have reduced the number of people killed vastly if someone had been carrying, and there are several examples of people saving themselves and other with concealed weapons.

Open carry is great because you can carry a full sized handgun for optimum accuracy and comfort. But concealed has it's merits as well. I'd rather people just keep it concealed, but that's my opinion.

Just with all states were "shall issue", but not every plan works every where.

[katandmoon]

5. Yeah, let 'em show off their dick extenstions out in the open

Makes these psycho gun worshippers a lot easier to avoid.

[tburnsten]

6. It took five responses

for some idiot obsessed with penis to come post a retarded statement about gunowners and their penises.



You really add to the discussion here buddy.

[dmallind]

9. Never understood that one really

Anybody who thinks handguns (I'm assuming we're talking about handguns if the discussion is on open vs. concealed carry) are some kind of penis aggrandizement has seriously skewed perceptions on either guns or penises. I'm not exactly Ron Jeremy but even my modest endowment is significantly larger than any handgun I own. Even a full size 1911 has a 5" barrel, and I doubt anybody but competitive shooters owns let alone carries anything with a barrel much beyond 6".

A comfortable weapon suitable for carrying concealed or otherwise typically has a 3.5-5" long barrel. Many are smaller than that. I can't imagine too many men with whatever kind of penis-size issues have too much trouble overshadowing their "penis substitutes" with the real thing.

[Scout]

12. ask the United States Marine Corps about that gun/penis confusion thing....

This is my rifle
This is my gun
This is for killing
This is for fun

guess some of those marine recruits are a little confused, eh?

silly sillies, it's not that anyone really thinks that gun owners have small penises ... it's a euphemism for their sense of personal inadequacy that leads them to feel like big strong men when they have a gun. fucking duh, how dense can some people be?

[dmallind]

14. Ermm... I think the Marines are joking there

And if it's about inadequacy and being a big strong man why not say so instead of the ever-so-original penis references? Rather a strange substitution of arguments there.

Ironically this too is the wrong way round - it is those who believe they can take on all comers in unarmed combat and therefore have no need for firearms who have the big man fantasies.

[Scout]

17. because it's so much more fun when the gun nuts get their panties

in a wad and start talking about their penises.

"it is those who believe they can take on all comers in unarmed combat and therefore have no need for firearms who have the big man fantasies"
most people are not so paranoid that they even think about "unarmed combat" and having to be ready for an attack at any moment, at home or away :rofl:

[tburnsten]

19. Since when is the USMC the gold standard of gun owners?

We in the service have plenty of silly songs we sing while marching, they are songs, nothing more. No one in the Marines actually thinks their penis is a gun.

And that song was originated in Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, not in the service. The only reason it is ever sung now is because we think it is funny, and a little foolish. Have you ever been sleep deprived, forced to eat in record time, and physically pushed to your limits for an extended period of time? Any silly little diversion helps you make it through and helps build a feeling of camaraderie.

[Scout]

20. when did anyone say it was? n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmg257]

27. Actually was around long before Kubrik. Was in Battle Cry in '43, likely used/common before that. nt

[jmg257]

23. Semper Fi, Mac! Well aware of the USMC take on it, and why they say it.

It has nothing to do with "penis extensions" as katandmoon thinks, or because recruits are confused about which is which.
And not at all relevant in explaining why katandmoon has a penis fixation related to guns.(genitalia fear? fascination? loathing? desire?)


Anyway, so exactly which gun owners "feel like big strong men" when they have a gun? Have a link or something?

(I mean besides the US Marines..."...My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless...")

[spin]

26. At least you made a somewhat coherent arguement...

However the statement:

silly sillies, it's not that anyone really thinks that gun owners have small penises ... it's a euphemism for their sense of personal inadequacy that leads them to feel like big strong men when they have a gun. fucking duh, how dense can some people be?

is a bit off the mark.

I once took a class in Jujutsu taught by one of the highest ranking judo instructors in the country. Jujutsu can be described as "street fighting" not tournament style combat.

Since most street encounters involve weapons, a considerable amount of class time focused on what the student should do when faced with an attacker armed with a gun or a knife.

Fighting an opponent armed with a knife takes a lot of practice and the instructor was quick to point out that there's an excellent chance that you can do everything right and still get cut.

Fighting an opponent armed with a firearm is even more difficult. If the attacker was standing within a couple of feet, we were taught some very effective techniques for disarming him. However if he was more than an arm’s length away, few techniques gave you a good chance of disarming him.

The instructor told us to look into the attackers eyes, as the eyes are the mirror of the soul. If you felt that the attacker intended to hurt you, use the techniques he taught. If all he wanted was your money his advice was to merely give it to him. He said, "You can always replace your wallet, your driver’s license and credit cards...but you can't replace your life."

He also stated, "I'm an 8th degree black belt in Judo. A man with a .45 auto is a 9th degree."

So for many it's not a "sense of personal inadequacy" that leads them to carry a weapon for self defense. It's a realization that while you might be a strong capable individual with a lot of training, you may well find yourself at a disadvantage when facing a street thug. He may have more experience in real life street fighting and use techniques you have never prepared for.

Chances are your attacker will be armed with a weapon. If you are also armed and are proficient with your weapon, you have a better chance of surviving the encounter if it turns violent. Of course, your first objective is to avoid finding yourself in such a situation. "Situational awareness" may be your best survival technique.

But it is true that you can go through life without ever finding yourself in a "life or death" situation. Most people do.

Many people drive their cars without wearing a seat belt. Many luck out and never have an accident. Some die or are seriously injured. Those drivers who do wear seat belts and have accidents often survive because of their foresight.

[spin]

29. It's called terminology...

defined as:

the technical or special terms used in a business, art, science, or special subject.

gun

1 a: a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory b: a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun) c: a device that throws a projectile

rifle

1 a: a shoulder weapon with a rifled bore

Therefore, a rile is a specific type of gun.



The navy emphasizes the difference between a ship and a boat

ship

1 a: a large seagoing vessel

boat

1 a: a small vessel for travel on water

Therefore, a boat is something you can put on a ship.


The military tends to be sticklers on the correct use of a term.

Note all definitions from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

[tburnsten]

15. Yeah... Even my 6" L-Frame .357 Magnum, the closest to actual length,

Doesn't have any girth to it.

[jmg257]

24. Now, I do admit to some compensation..although rather large, my penis still can't shoot

a 165gr JHP at 1200fps. That's what my HK is for.

[gorfle]

41. Whahaahahah

my penis still can't shoot a 165gr JHP at 1200fps. That's what my HK is for.

Reminds me of that scene from the movie "Real Genius":

Susan: Can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?
Chris Knight: Not right now.
Susan: A girl's gotta have her standards.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

28. Not sure about you, but I used to own a FIFTY caliber handgun, and when I sold it...

My penis shrunk 2 sizes. :(

[spin]

36. Curiosity, how strong was the recoil on that brute?

I've handled the S&W 500 at gun shops but never had a chance to shoot one.

(I have no desire to buy one, as I can't find any logical excuse.)


Smith and Wesson model 500 compared to model 629 .44 mag

[tburnsten]

38. That X-frame makes the N-frame look like an L-frame or heavy barreled K-frame!

Good lord!

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

13. Perhaps you need some education on penis size, let me help...

You might note that an extremely small percentage of men have a penis length under 4". The average penis size is between 5.5" to 6.5" with a higher percentage of men having a penis length longer than the average than shorter.

Most commonly carried firearms have barrel lengths of 5" or less. My carry weapon is a snub nosed revolver with a 1 7/8" barrel. I have never known any shooters who carried a weapons with a barrel longer than 5" (with the exception of hunters in the field).

Surely you can be more creative and more adult when you decide to insult gun owners. (I assume you are an adult, not merely a pimple faced teenager.)

The pro-gun posters merely laugh at comments like yours, and point out how many replies it takes before an anti-gun poster inserts the obligatory penis size comment.

[Scout]

18. jesus christ, they are so worried about it they measure them..... n/t

[tburnsten]

21. I'm quite sure that chart didn't come from a gun group

Plenty of people are curious about where they fit on the sliding scale that is proportions.

[spin]

32. Obviously, I should have posted the source of the chart for the curious...

http://www.average-penis-size-chart.com/

The Gungeon appears to be spending a lot of time and effort discussing penis size recently.

It would be more interesting and enlightening if we would move the discussions above the belt.

[Howzit]

39. Just right click on "properties" to see where the file comes from:

http://www.average-penis-size-chart.com/banner/penis-size-chart. gif

[jmg257]

25. Measure what - penises or gun barrels?

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

30. I'd like to know too... that way I know if I need to fetch the ruler or yardstick. lol (n/t)

[jmg257]

31. HA! LOL! nice!

[gorfle]

34. Micrometer.

:)

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

35. touché (n/t)

[Scout]

33. read for yourself, look at the chart that was posted by someone else n/t

[jmg257]

37. Saw the chart, read the post - 2 different objects were the target of measurement..Wasn't sure. nt

[tburnsten]

40. 1

1

[SteveM]

44. Umm, the better for you to... admire? (nt)

[Endangered Specie]

43. Y'all know I'm a pro gun guy, but I am a believer in CC only...

Concealed carry requires alot less training, because open carry you run the risk of someone trying to subdue/take your weapon before/during a crime against you. Concealed carry also avoids citizens calling the police on 'guy with a gun!" People who are allergic to guns can't see them so they are effectively happy.

Also, Concealed carry protects non carriers, as a potential criminal would know that in an open carry only place, he/she would know when a threat in vulnerable and there are no potential good Samaritans around. A criminal in a concealed carry state should know they run the risk of picking the WRONG victim.

I sum it up like this:
Concealed Carry for Lawful Citizens.
Open Carry for Law Enforcement.

Now, of course, your own property, you can carry as you please.

[paulsby]

45. i've got a few of those calls

"man with a gun" for people lawfully openly carrying here in WA.

we try to patiently explain to the RP that being a "man witha gun" is not a crime, and it's a violation of somebody's civil rights to make a terry stop merely because they are carrying openly.

it is a constitutionally protected right (regardless of one's thoughts about the 2nd amendment it is clearly protected under our state constitution).

[iverglas]

47. you see, here's the part I've never got

being a "man witha gun" is not a crime

How do you KNOW that?

How do you know that the man with the gun has not been convicted of a string of armed robberies and is currently out on parole?

If he were, then being a "man with a gun" would very definitely be a crime, would it not?

So how do you find out?

Or do we just not give a shit?

[yay]

48. Guilty until proven innocent eh?

Title speaks for itself.

[iverglas]

50. "Title speaks for itself."

Yours certainly does.

It says one of two things, loud and clear:

(a) I have no regard for the truth and will say anything if I think it will advance my agenda;

or

(b) I actually don't have a clue what "innocent until proved guilty" means.

Or both, of course.

[yay]

54. I'll take "I don't give a poo"

I believe in second chances. I understand the logic of your post, but if you're that paranoid about the people around you I think you need to seek therapy.

[paulsby]

51. yea

amazing how constitutional concerns go out the door when it comes to guns.

this is what the WA state constitution says:


SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

that's pretty frigging clear.

law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the constitution, and sworn to protect people's rights. do we always succeed ? of course not. heck, i've made mistakes...

but the fact that a person is carrying a gun in a holster as he walks down the street is not evidence of a crime.

fwiw, in a long career i have NEVER been threatened, shot at, or dealt with anybody with a concealed weapons permit (slightly off topic but back to basics) who used their weapon unlawfully and certainly not in a violent matter.

i've arrested a few people WITH concealed weapons for OTHER stuff, but considering the many people with CCW's here, my experience matches the national stats - people with CCW's are phenomenally law abiding.

i've had several friends shot, and i've been in shootings/shot at. none of the offenders were lawfully carrying the gun at the time (ALL were convicted felons).

otoh, i have a friend in the dept. who was saved by a guy with a permit. she was apprehending a guy who had just robbed a convenience store. he was disarmed but then attacked her and got her gun out of the holster and they were wrestling for it. store owner ran up and centerpunched the guy in the head. one shot, one kill.

she'd probably be dead if not for that guy with the CCW.

so, yes. we respect civilian carry.

[iverglas]

53. and it would have been just too bad

i've had several friends shot, and i've been in shootings/shot at. none of the offenders were lawfully carrying the gun at the time (ALL were convicted felons).

if 10 minutes earlier, some curious passerby had noticed one of those guns and called the police, and the police had said "being a man with a gun is not a crime".

'Cause that's all the police could have and should have done, right?

[paulsby]

56. yes

that's how things work in a society that has rule of law, and a constitution.

fwiw, NONE of the people that shot at me, or shot my friends were carrying OPENLY.

one, for instance, grabbed a gun out of his pocket (.38) and shot THREE of my partners.

nobody saw his gun UNTIL he used it. that's usually the way convicted felons and those planning to use a gun for a crime operate.

in another case, a guy who shot at me, pulled the gun out of his waistband. he, otoh, was in a liquor establishment where carrying a firearm is banned, so if anybody reported THAT, we would investigate, since it's RS of a crime.

but yes, in our country police are restrained by the constitution.

hindsight is always 20/20.


stopping somebody in WA state who is carrying openly is HARASSMENT. if i caught one of my trainees doing that, he would be in trouble.

[yay]

57. Makes me proud to live in washington sometimes.

"stopping somebody in WA state who is carrying openly is HARASSMENT. if i caught one of my trainees doing that, he would be in trouble."

That's good to hear. I know there are good people in the police departments. I just wish it was more common place instead of the guy's with "little man's syndrome".

Now if only we could fix that mildly retarded law regarding suppressors... That would make me happy

[paulsby]

58. WA state

due to its constitution is pretty libertarian when it comes to guns.

sad to say that many on the left have ATTEMPTED to curtail gun rights. see for example mayor nickels in seattle and his proposals.

however, they constatnly get thwarted by our constitution.

[Statistical]

61. Criminals aren't the brightest but....

wouldn't they quickly realize that carrying a weapon visibly is an easy way to get caught.....
so they would start hiding the weapon?

Kinda like they do right now. Strange that even where it is legal to open carry (like in VA) we don't see many criminals committing illegal acts while legally open carrying.

Instead they strangely they HIDE their weapons to avoid detection.

If I see someone open carrying I assume they likely are an off duty cop, a security guard, or somebody excercising their right.
Statistically if you see someone open carrying they are less likely to be a felon than average person (who may or may not be carrying a weapon given that most criminals hide their weapons.

[paulsby]

63. yes

"wouldn't they quickly realize that carrying a weapon visibly is an easy way to get caught.....
so they would start hiding the weapon?"

yes. this is almost universally true (and based on decades of law enforcement experience not to mention reading crime reports DOJ stats, etc.)

"Kinda like they do right now. Strange that even where it is legal to open carry (like in VA) we don't see many criminals committing illegal acts while legally open carrying."

same thing in WA state. note that the VAST majority of those that commit violent crimes with firearms are already legally prohibited from possessing same (felony convictions, indictments pending, restraining/protective orders served), and you are right. they may not be rhodes scholars but they at least usually TRY to not get caught.


"If I see someone open carrying I assume they likely are an off duty cop, a security guard, or somebody excercising their right.
Statistically if you see someone open carrying they are less likely to be a felon than average person (who may or may not be carrying a weapon given that most criminals hide their weapons"

bingo. similarly, when i pull somebody over and they say they are carrying, and show me their license to carry, i know that statistically speaking they are much LESS likely to assault me, or otherwise be involved in criminal activity, than a person chosen at random.

[paulsby]

49. we have this pesky thing called a constitution

the minimum standard i need as a law enforcement officer to stop and identify somebody is referred to as "reasonable suspicion"

see: terry v. ohio

of course i don't KNOW the man isn't committing or hasn't committed a crime.

i don't KNOW that about any man walking down the street, many of whom are also carrying (especially concealed).

the point is that he is exercising his civil right and we don't harass people (at least good cops don't) for exercising constitutional rights, such as speech or firearm carry.

if i had prior knowledge he was a convicted felon or subject ot a protective order etc. then i would have (at least Reasonble suspicion, probably probable cause) to stop him.

but the fact remains. carrying a gun may annoy or disturb some people. but just because a member of the public doesn't like the fact that joe average walked down their street carrying a gun (assuming he is not brandishing it), if there is no RS to stop, i don't stop. period.

[iverglas]

52. care to address something I actually said?

If not, feel free to babble on. If you should happen to feel like it, though, it went like this:

You: being a "man witha gun" is not a crime
Me: how do you know?

Oh, okay, I guess you did answer it:

of course i don't KNOW the man isn't committing or hasn't committed a crime.

Huh.

You just don't think that a police service that is supposed to do things like, oh, detect and investigate crimes should do anything to find out.

And/or: You think it's a wonderful state of affairs that said police service is powerless to do anything to find out.

I expect better from my own police, I gotta say.

Btw:

if i had prior knowledge he was a convicted felon or subject ot a protective order etc.

How would you know that?

It seems to me that the best investigative technique available to you in these circumstances is mind-reading. Or maybe X-ray vision. Do they teach them at police college there?

[paulsby]

55. it's very simple

read the RCW .

i know because there is no such law as being a "man with a gun"

there are various violations one can do with a gun (and plenty one can do without one), but merely carrying a gun is not evidence of any crime in and of itself.

penal law. it's what's for dinner.

here's a hint. police services (in a country that has a constitution and civil rights) don't investigate somebody because they happened to walk down the street carrying a gun, any more than we would be authorized to investigate somebody because they were carrying a sign saying "obama sucks".

i'm not going to give you a long course on police procedure, penal law and constitutional law.

the issue is this . ANYBODY ***might*** be committing or have committed a crime. groovy. we have to have a reason to suspect same BEFORE we investigate.

certain things we do not need any threshold for. plain view for instance. i have the same right to walk down the street and see what i can see. but when it comes to stopping, identifying, etc. we need either RS or PC. period.

**if i had prior knowledge he was a convicted felon or subject ot a protective order etc.

":How would you know that?"

because i know plenty of convicted felons. i see people all the time i KNOW are convicted felons. many are convicted felons because of cases i generated.

in fact, i arrested a guy last week for felon in possession of a firearm. he was a "frequent flyer" and i knew he was a convicted felon.

"It seems to me that the best investigative technique available to you in these circumstances is mind-reading. Or maybe X-ray vision. Do they teach them at police college there?"

again, we have a constitution.

we don't USE investigative techniques that invade privacy without a reason. that's how police work in free society.

back to the instant case.

guy walking down the street, gun in holster.

i have no reasonable suspicion, heck i don't even have a hunch he has committed a crime. case law, pursuant to our constitution says that if stop him because of his carrying the gun - i have done an unlawful act. sorry. not going to do that.

it's pretty rare where i live. very few people in WA state exercise their right to open carry. concealed carry otoh is very common.

but to explain the law to you - it would be just as wrong (legally speaking) for me to pursue an investigation of the guy with a holstered gun as it would be for me to investigate somebody walking down the street with a t-shirt that said "democrats are scum of the earth".

they are both constitutionally protected actions.

[Statistical]

59. What about the guy just walking

Maybe he is a felon (smartly) hiding his weapon.
I mean if Police stop anyone carrying a weapon openly shouldn't we stop everyone.
Verify if they have a weapon and verify if they are a felon?

Most felons hide weapons on the off chance they are stopped for say speeding they don't get 5 years in prison.
Odds are if a guy if not open carrying he could be a felon who is concealed carrying.

See everyone is a risk.


Maybe we could just mark felons for life. Like put out their right eye with a branding iron. That way if you see a one eyed man w/ a gun likely he is a felon and the cops can kill him on sight,

[iverglas]

60. felons are just stupid

If they'd just walk around with their guns prominently displayed on their persons, they'd never have any problems.


Maybe we could just mark felons for life. Like put out their right eye with a branding iron. That way if you see a one eyed man w/ a gun likely he is a felon and the cops can kill him on sight,

Little early in the day for that much to drink, isn't it?