TexasCHLforum.com

People have suggested I visit opencarry.com so I would be set straight on open carry. So I did.

What I found were a group of people relating stories of harrasment by LE when openly carrying in states where it may be legal but so rarely done that that when someone does do it they attract a lot of unwanted attention.

This is even more interesting when considering that people have also told me that, "...there's no gun snatching problem in the open carry states and if I can't cite cases my argument carries no weight."

From what I can tell, in many "open carry states", open carry is more often done in peoples' dreams than on the street.

The people on opencarry.com mostly seem to do it to raise peoples' consciousness, and to keep the right from going away out of disuse.

That's why non-LEO gun snatching cases are hard to find. Because the number of people who actually carry openly is tiny.

Carrying openly to raise consciousness is perfectly OK. But it doesn't change the fact that is bad tactics in an urban environment.

Even on opencarry.com people admit that carrying openly requires more alertness and involves increased vulnerability to a snatch attempt. But in their cases they do it anyway, not because it is smart tactics (it isn't) but because they are trying to preserve the right.

So fight for the right. Preserve the right. You have my vote.

But don't try to tell me that it is a smart or tactically sound thing to do.

Tactical surprise is a huge advantage.

srothstein wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So if you are in close proximity to numbers of people whom you don't know, there is a chance that one of them might see your gun and try to snatch it. A struggle for the gun could ensue. Anything could happen.

Isn't this the same assumption the gun grabbers use to argue to ban guns? That is, assuming all of the people out there are bad guys.

No. My main assumption is that it is better to have tactical surprise.

srothstein wrote:

Cops carry openly mostly because they have to.

Sorry, but I have to ask why you think this is true. I know lots of cops who carry concealed on duty. I agree that it would look unusual to see a cop in uniform without a weapon, but there is no law saying they cannot carry that way (at least in Texas).

I think that most departments require their uniformed cops to carry openly. There may be exceptions.

Armed citizens do not need to carry openly. They do not need to take on the added risk. That being the case, IMO it is foolish to do so.

srothstein wrote: I don't think it is foolish to do so since I see it as a very little added risk. I just see it as a personal choice and don't worry about it either way.

I think that having tactical surprise is of great value. And I think having a gun that is "snatchable" means that at the margin it is more likely to get snatched. It's just a matter of opportunity.

srothstein wrote: I do see a benefit to open carry also. If enough people carried openly and nothing happened, we might stop scaring people that all guns make the owners go nuts and kill. The average citizen might just stop worrying so much about guns if they saw them every day in a non-threatening way.

Open carry as a political crusade is one thing. If that is what you want to do, I have no problem with it. It's your decision and your assumption of risk. And I will state again (just so someone doesn't accuse me of having dark political motives) that I support open carry politically. If there was a bill here in TX, I would support it.

txinvestigator wrote:All of this rhetoric about the danger of open carry as applied to cops and this incident specifically is pointless unless we know HOW the suspect got the officers gun.

Did he get it FROM the officers holster, or did the officer pull his weapon and get it either taken away, or shot with during a struggle for control of the weapon?

We don't know, do we?

Bingo! While the argument "again" is very spirited and good points are made on both sides of the issue...

My first concern is for the family of the murdered officer, nothing else matters when you get right down to it...

But for some reason I'll interject a thought...

Why is there a perseption that if someone (your average Joe Q Criminal) that has "ill will" or intent, would be suddenly compelled, overwhelmed at the sight of an "openly carryed handgun" that that is just the straw that broke the camels back???

They just feel the urge to try and take it from you??? Somehow I feel that solitary act would be the defining moment of their lives???

My sarcasm gets to me sometimes, and I try not appear to be disrespectful to anyone's opinion in this forum...Its never meant to be that way...

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If there was a bill here in TX, I would support it.

Good...That clears that up...

But don't try to tell me that it is a smart or tactically sound thing to do.

I don't see where anyone has, I stand to be corrected if I am wrong...

In the meantime, I'll conceal my firearm per the law...If that changes, and we are given the option to do so, I believe those of us who choose to open carry will do so with the upmost responsibility, and concern for safety and weapon retention...

And the big secret that elludes many discussions...

It may not end up being that widespread of an issue with most folks...

stevie_d_64 wrote: Why is there a perseption that if someone (your average Joe Q Criminal) that has "ill will" or intent, would be suddenly compelled, overwhelmed at the sight of an "openly carryed handgun" that that is just the straw that broke the camels back???

I'd look at it as something like the same reason that a pickpocket picks your pocket.

You wouldn't walk around in Manila with a fat wallet half hanging out of your back pocket. (Trust me. I've been there. It wouldn't last 5 minutes. In Manila, if you're smart, you carry your wallet in a front pocket.)

If you're carrying openly in a non-retention holster, say behind the hip or in the small of the back, the gun is just sitting there waiting to be snatched.

Do that in a place where there are some people who fit the general description of "thugs" or "gang members" hanging around and tell me what that you think of the tactical situation.

For good measure, gather up a few items of groceries in your hands.

Now sure, there are things you could do differently, like maybe using a shoulder rig with some serious retention features.

Then, all you'd have to worry about is being the first one shot if a couple of armed robbers hit the store while you were in it.

Of course if you were carrying concealed, you would look like just another customer to them. This could result in your getting an opening that you would not have had carrying openly.

Now you might say that the BG's would see the shoulder rig and say, "Woah! That guy in there is carryin'. Forget it, man. Let's get out of here!"

And you may be right.

The choice is between tactical surprise and deterrence. I think that for most people, having surprise wins out.

carlson1 wrote:Prayers for the slain Deputy and his family.

This does not change the fact it is my RIGHT to bear ARMS anyway I choose including open carry!

Once again this is a argument.


Here is the KEY:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: IMO

We all have one. Your title is completely wrong it should NOT be "Open Carry Claims Another Victim" but rather "another criminal" claims another victim.

I completly agree with you on this.

All this and none of you know how the officer who is the topic of this thread got his weapon taken.

txinvestigator wrote:All this and none of you know how the officer who is the topic of this thread got his weapon taken.

With articles, it's hard to tell. From reading it, I gather that the officer had some type of minor head trauma, which enabled the thug to grab his gun in the officer's moment of weakness.

txinvestigator wrote:All this and none of you know how the officer who is the topic of this thread got his weapon taken.

It's not the point.

The cop was carrying openly. He got into a scuffle, presumably while trying to make the arrest. His weapon got taken.

If someone (non-LEO) is carrying openly and THEY get into a scuffle, perhaps triggered by the fact that a BG saw an opportunity to snatch a gun from someone half his size, or of a different gender, or 40 years older, while waiting in line at Mickey-D's or whatever, the situation is the same.

Except that the non-LEO probably doesn't have weapon retention training, hand-to-hand combat training, a baton, OC spray, backup on the way, and the knowledge on the part of the BG that if he whacks this guy, every LEO in the area will drop what they are doing to catch him.

And in the non-LEO case, the scuffle would not have happened if the BG couldn't see the gun.

Frankie,

I think we understand your position....even though it was largely presented without benefit of documentation or fact.

The reason examples of "snatching" from non-LEO's are hard to come by is because very few of them are stupid enough to carry openly in the wide variety of places where there would be a significant risk.

Then take whatever number you wish and extrapolate it. Simple, yes?
You seek to prove your point by inferring that so few people carry openly (in states that allow it) that you can not provide any empirical evidence for your statements. Convenient, but something less than scientific.

I have seen this happen many times. Any non-LEO, non-uniformed security guard who carries openly in RI will get arrested every day.

Perhaps the above is a starting point for how many people open carry. You state you have witnessed it "many times" so count 'em up. How many of these people had their gun "snatched" None....from what you posted. They were harassed by the police, but that is another subject.

I merely think it is D-U-M-B to carry openly in an urban environment.

That doesn't change the fact that it is tactically stupid to do it in most situations.

As stated in another post, we appreciate your opinion.

But don't try to tell me that it is a smart or tactically sound thing to do.

I have read back through the posts (thus far) and can find no such offering.

All I will say is, walk into an urban quickie mart full of BG types while carrying openly in a non-retention type holster, and then talk to me about it. I've been there, I have the teeshirt, and I'm working on the book deal. I have carried concealed for many years, and believe me, it wasn't hard to tell the difference.

Now I know a lot of people here would say, "You should not have gone into that quickie mart." But I have a life to live and I'm not gonna spend it hiding under a bed. if I want a soda I'm gonna buy one wherever I happen to find it.

Do that in a place where there are some people who fit the general description of "thugs" or "gang members" hanging around and tell me what that you think of the tactical situation.

As concerns this quote and the one previous to it "tactical soundness", well...... you have to wonder if this is oozing with TS itself.



Concealed or Open carry...it makes sense to avoid places where increased risk of altercation exist, I am sure you would agree.

Don't make me laugh. I wouldn't trust anything I saw on that website.

Too bad the geniuses at opencarry.com do not seem to be aware of this. They show RI as "green" on their map.

Pick your own website, just trying to help. Did you happen to post this over there when you visited "Too bad the geniuses at opencarry.com". Either RI is a "licensed open carry state" as listed on their site or it is not. I believe they have it right.....regardless of what the police there think.

Not much chance of that. You guys are too paranoid.

Its possible, but not to the point that I think there lurks a BG behind every tree and bush waiting to "snatch" my openly carried weapon. I could be wrong of course.

Unfortunately, I don't really care, if you like open carry, or if you want the right to do it in TX. FWIW, if it was on the table, I would support it.

It ain't my problem if someone gets their darn fool head blown off.

Wow, for a subject you don't care about... you have made quite a protracted debate about it. In the process you presented some valid points.

For the life of me, I can not connect "Open Carry claims another victim" with a cop losing his weapon during a struggle, but I'm kinda thick.

flintknapper wrote:

I have seen this happen many times. Any non-LEO, non-uniformed security guard who carries openly in RI will get arrested every day.

Perhaps the above is a starting point for how many people open carry. You state you have witnessed it "many times" so count 'em up. How many of these people had their gun "snatched" None....from what you posted. They were harassed by the police, but that is another subject.

No guns were snatched. But none of the cases I am referring to involved people who were intentionally carrying openly. They all involved people who were carrying concealed but who were "made" because their clothing shifted or some other circumstance.

I lived in RI for 50 years, held a pistol permit for the last 8, and was president of a gun club for the last 4. In all that time, I have never, ever heard of anyone other than a uniformed security guard who carried openly on an AG-issued permit, even though under RI law it "appears" to be fully legal to do so.

If someone's openly carrying a gun in RI in public, they will be arrested. Because even though the AG-issued permit is a permit to carry, "whether concealed or not", there is also this other little provision of RI law that I cite below.

§ 11-47-28 Arrest and detention for possession of firearms. – Every officer authorized to make an arrest may, without complaint and warrant, arrest any person who has in his or her possession any firearm whenever the officer has reasonable ground to suspect that the person possesses or is using or is carrying the firearm contrary to law. Any person so arrested may be detained a reasonable time, not exceeding twenty-four (24) hours, for the purpose of making an investigation concerning the person, but no person so arrested shall be detained longer than twenty-four (24) hours without complaint being made against him or her before some proper court or justice. If the officer making the arrest shall at any time within the twenty-four (24) hours satisfy himself or herself that there is no ground for making a criminal complaint against the person, he or she shall be discharged from custody.

Do you know what this means? Do the gun shop lawyers over at opencarry.com know what it means? Just in case you don't, allow me to explain.

Because less than 1% of RI adults possess AG-issued pistol permits, the law is interpreted such that any time a cop sees someone carrying a handgun (carrying of unloaded long guns is not illegal) he can have, ".... reasonable ground to suspect that the person possesses or is using or is carrying the firearm contrary to law." So they can arrest that person if they choose, and start their "investigation".

I'll bet the gun shop lawyers never told you about that one, hey?

Now you might think that simply showing your pistol permit would end the matter right then and there. I would agree that it should. And once in a great while, it does. But most of the time, they run you in, check with the AG's office to "make sure your permit hasn't been revoked", and hold you until they are satisfied or 24 hrs. goes by - whichever comes first.

And this is one of opencarry.com's "green" states, meaning "open carry allowed with license".

flintknapper wrote: Either RI is a "licensed open carry state" as listed on their site or it is not. I believe they have it right.....regardless of what the police there think.

"Regardless of what the police might think"? Ha..ha.. The gunshop lawyers at opencarry.com "have it right" alright. They just left out the minor detail that you will get arrested every time you do it.

flintknapper wrote:

All I will say is, walk into an urban quickie mart full of BG types while carrying openly in a non-retention type holster, and then talk to me about it. I've been there, I have the teeshirt, and I'm working on the book deal. I have carried concealed for many years, and believe me, it wasn't hard to tell the difference.

Now I know a lot of people here would say, "You should not have gone into that quickie mart." But I have a life to live and I'm not gonna spend it hiding under a bed. if I want a soda I'm gonna buy one wherever I happen to find it.

Do that in a place where there are some people who fit the general description of "thugs" or "gang members" hanging around and tell me what that you think of the tactical situation.

As concerns this quote and the one previous to it "tactical soundness", well...... you have to wonder if this is oozing with TS itself.

As I said, I have a life to live. If someone wants to carry openly while hiding under their bed, or camped out in the middle of nowhere on top of a big pointy rock, that's OK with me.

But that's not why I carry a gun. I carry a gun to protect (my) innocent life, wherever I want or need to go. If I have to avoid places that I want or need to go to, that might be more dangerous because I'm carrying a gun, (in other words, that would be less dangerous if I didn't have a gun with me) then the gun is getting in the way.

Like I said, I have a life to live.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

I have seen this happen many times. Any non-LEO, non-uniformed security guard who carries openly in RI will get arrested every day.

Perhaps the above is a starting point for how many people open carry. You state you have witnessed it "many times" so count 'em up. How many of these people had their gun "snatched" None....from what you posted. They were harassed by the police, but that is another subject.

No guns were snatched. But none of the cases I am referring to involved people who were intentionally carrying openly. They all involved people who were carrying concealed but who were "made" because their clothing shifted or some other circumstance.

I lived in RI for 50 years, held a pistol permit for the last 8, and was president of a gun club for the last 4. In all that time, I have never, ever heard of anyone other than a uniformed security guard who carried openly on an AG-issued permit, even though under RI law it "appears" to be fully legal to do so.

If someone's openly carrying a gun in RI in public, they will be arrested. Because even though the AG-issued permit is a permit to carry, "whether concealed or not", there is also this other little provision of RI law that I cite below.

§ 11-47-28 Arrest and detention for possession of firearms. – Every officer authorized to make an arrest may, without complaint and warrant, arrest any person who has in his or her possession any firearm whenever the officer has reasonable ground to suspect that the person possesses or is using or is carrying the firearm contrary to law. Any person so arrested may be detained a reasonable time, not exceeding twenty-four (24) hours, for the purpose of making an investigation concerning the person, but no person so arrested shall be detained longer than twenty-four (24) hours without complaint being made against him or her before some proper court or justice. If the officer making the arrest shall at any time within the twenty-four (24) hours satisfy himself or herself that there is no ground for making a criminal complaint against the person, he or she shall be discharged from custody.

Do you know what this means? Do the gun shop lawyers over at opencarry.com know what it means? Just in case you don't, allow me to explain.

Because less than 1% of RI adults possess AG-issued pistol permits, the law is interpreted such that any time a cop sees someone carrying a handgun (carrying of unloaded long guns is not illegal) he can have, ".... reasonable ground to suspect that the person possesses or is using or is carrying the firearm contrary to law." So they can arrest that person if they choose, and start their "investigation".

I'll bet the gun shop lawyers never told you about that one, hey?

Now you might think that simply showing your pistol permit would end the matter right then and there. I would agree that it should. And once in a great while, it does. But most of the time, they run you in, check with the AG's office to "make sure your permit hasn't been revoked", and hold you until they are satisfied or 24 hrs. goes by - whichever comes first.

And this is one of opencarry.com's "green" states, meaning "open carry allowed with license".

flintknapper wrote: Either RI is a "licensed open carry state" as listed on their site or it is not. I believe they have it right.....regardless of what the police there think.

"Regardless of what the police might think"? Ha..ha.. The gunshop lawyers at opencarry.com "have it right" alright. They just left out the minor detail that you will get arrested every time you do it.

Frankie,

With all due respect, my statement was a simple one... requiring only a simple answer (Either RI is a "licensed open carry state" as listed on their site or it is not).

Per the law...RI is a licensed open carry state. Even if other measures exist by which the police may arrest/detain a person, the state remains open carry by license. The folks at OpenCarry have correctly listed it as such.

Note, they did not list it as a "Gold" state.....suggesting they are not as dumb you may think. Hey?

What it really boils down to... is weighing "what is possible" against "what is probable" and then applying it to your lifestyle.

Mine is no doubt different from yours. Personally, if I were to live another 53 years..(and open carry everyday), I firmly believe I would never have my weapon snatched from me.

On the other hand, if I were to frequent places where "Thugs/BG's" traditionally spend their time.....I would expect some amount of trouble eventually, whether I was carrying concealed or open. Thats what thugs and BG's do for a living.

Instead, I choose to stay away from those places. Its kind of a novel idea....don't you think?

To habitually do otherwise.....is to tempt fate. I have enough come my way without helping it along.

Good day Sir.

srothstein wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So if you are in close proximity to numbers of people whom you don't know, there is a chance that one of them might see your gun and try to snatch it. A struggle for the gun could ensue. Anything could happen.

Isn't this the same assumption the gun grabbers use to argue to ban guns? That is, assuming all of the people out there are bad guys. I have carried openly for a long time and the only time someone has tried to grab my gun was in training.

I will admit that this is a possibility. There are robbers out there or we would not consider carrying at all. But I don't see it as a real possibility. I get more worked up about the ladies who carry their weapons in their purses, especially the ones designed as holsters. There are way more purse snatchings out there than I would like for this type of carry.

But lets get realistic about this. If you do not put yourself into a bad situation, will your gun get grabbed. I doubt it. Cops get their guns grabbed because they go try to arrest people and some people, for some unknown reason, just don't want to be arrested. If you don't try this, you are much safer to begin with.

Cops carry openly mostly because they have to.

Sorry, but I have to ask why you think this is true. I know lots of cops who carry concealed on duty. I agree that it would look unusual to see a cop in uniform without a weapon, but there is no law saying they cannot carry that way (at least in Texas).

Armed citizens do not need to carry openly. They do not need to take on the added risk. That being the case, IMO it is foolish to do so.

I don't think it is foolish to do so since I see it as a very little added risk. I just see it as a personal choice and don't worry about it either way. I do see a benefit to open carry also. If enough people carried openly and nothing happened, we might stop scaring people that all guns make the owners go nuts and kill. The average citizen might just stop worrying so much about guns if they saw them every day in a non-threatening way.

Excellent Post Stephen! 100%

This has nothing to do with our debate other than to remember those who have lost their life defending our rights for the debate and protecting our communities

Bowie County Sheriff's Department
Texas
End of Watch: Saturday, June 30, 2007

Biographical Info
Age: 34
Tour of Duty: 8 years
Badge Number: Not available

Incident Details
Cause of Death: Gunfire
Date of Incident: Saturday, June 30, 2007
Weapon Used: Officer's handgun
Suspect Info: Committed suicide

Deputy Michael Page was shot and killed with his own service weapon during a struggle with a hit-and-run suspect.

Deputy Page had responded to a report of a car striking a utility pole. As he arrived on the scene he observed a man running into the nearby woods. A scuffle ensued in the woods and Deputy Page was struck over the head and then shot in the shoulder with his own weapon.

Paramedics and other deputies who responded to the scene located Deputy Page as he walked himself out of the woods. He was transported to a local hospital where he succumbed to his wounds a short time later.

The suspect's body was found later in the day with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Deputy Page had served with the Bowie County Sheriff's Department for 3 years, and had previously served with the Texarkana Police Department for five years. He is survived by his wife, two children and father.