Open carry with holster requirements

[C-dub]

Now you are getting into a real grey area. I don't remember, but are there signs that would prohibit me from carrying my Henry into Walmart? I can walk around town with it. So, what would be the difference between me carrying my Henry around or my Glock? And if there are no signs at Walmart that would prohibit me from doing this, I don't see the difference with a handgun. There is and we all know there is, but when you think about it this way, I don't know.

[Hoi Polloi]

One of the suggestions for me on how I could reasonably carry was with a Barami hip grip. IIRC, it was at about 1 or 2' O' Clock that was suggested for me.



Is this really equivalent to a felon walking around WalMart at low ready?

[terryg]

Not a valid argument.

Kind of like someone some of us knew who used to use a vending machine that dispensed machine guns in airports as an example.

I must admit I'm a bit confused. I don't get this reference all.

I stand by my assertion. Balance is the government honoring the constitution and the second amendment as it is written.

Anygunanywhere

Unless you can better explain to me why the argument is not valid, then I still stand by my assertion. There is a line. Each of us would draw one somewhere. We might not always agree exactly where that line is drawn - but all of us would draw one somewhere. Perhaps it is 'just this side' of the edge - but it is somewhere.

[anygunanywhere]

Not a valid argument.

Kind of like someone some of us knew who used to use a vending machine that dispensed machine guns in airports as an example.

I must admit I'm a bit confused. I don't get this reference all.

We had a thread a long time ago about us being able to carry legally on airlines. A deceased poster named frankie_the_yankee used the argument that if we were allowed to carry, terrorists would just purchase machine guns from vending machines, or something to that effect. Not a valid argument.

Anygunanywhere

[dicion]

Everyone just needs to Pay the $5 AOW Tax Stamp, and open carry One Of These

It's not a handgun, it's technically a long gun, specifically an AOW.

Definately thigh strappable though and not illegal to open carry in texas

[C-dub]

Very cool!

[baldeagle]

In your world, carrying in a truly irresponsible manner can be defined by law but until someone violates that law then they have the RKBA.

Exactly how many restrictions are you willing to put up with And at what point do you draw the line?

You are willing to allow the government to define irresponsible? The government?

If you allow the government control of the line they can put it wharever they want and they seldom move it back.

Anygunanywhere

The government is us. Far too many have forgotten that.

When you live in close proximity to other human beings, you have to compromise and give up some of your freedoms. Nothing in life is absolute. And yes, when someone violates the law, they lose their RKBA, just as when someone yells fire in a crowded theatre, they lose their freedom. The RKBA is not absolute any more then free speech is absolute or freedom of religion is absolute or any other freedom is absolute.

[terryg]

Not a valid argument.

Kind of like someone some of us knew who used to use a vending machine that dispensed machine guns in airports as an example.

I must admit I'm a bit confused. I don't get this reference all.

We had a thread a long time ago about us being able to carry legally on airlines. A deceased poster named frankie_the_yankee used the argument that if we were allowed to carry, terrorists would just purchase machine guns from vending machines, or something to that effect. Not a valid argument.

Anygunanywhere

Ok, thanks for explaining. But sorry, I don't see the connection.

It seems like his argument was essentially that if the law abiding public is allowed to carry on flights, the terrorist would be able to have guns on flights as well. His taking it to the extreme (i.e. the vending machines) really contributed nothing to his assertion. Whether the BG get the guns from the vending machines are brought them from home is not really relevant. He was just being a sensationalist - at least as I can tell from your description.

The picture that I was painting is that very few of us would be comfortable transacting life in public spaces with people walking around with guns drawn. The extreme I posited is completely relevant to the discussion. Yes, it is a ridiculous extreme, but it is valid in that it is legitimately on the continuum - and that is the point.

Why would we be uncomfortable with people walking around at low ready (assuming the booger hook is not on the bang switch)? If they are careful about the direction while at low ready, they are not breaking any of the four rules. Most of us can draw and acquire a target in 4-5 seconds; so they are only 4 seconds or so closer to being able to kill someone than any of us.

So why all the fuss? Could it be that it would induce an unnecessary state of alarm? Could it be that even if being very careful, there is an increased risk of an ND? Doesn't the second amendment say "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says nothing about how those arms should be borne. Yet we are perfectly comfortable restricting this to manners in which we deem safe and that we feel minimize unnecessary public alarm.

Look, I am not saying this as an argument against open carry. Not at all. I am simply saying that there are limits, we all have them and it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that there are none.

[gigag04]

Balance is the government honoring the constitution and the second amendment as it is written.

Anygunanywhere

There are numerous restrictions on every one of the rights. Why does the 2A get a pass, that the 1st amendment didn't? There are restrictions set on free speech?

Or the 6th amendment, regarding a right face one's accuser - in child sexual assault cases they rig it with CCTV. You can't confront someone through CCTV.

Eight amendment - Excessive bail/bonds are often set. Obviously the judges or juries do not consider these excessive, but many would. Flight risk, violation of previous bond agreements, criminal history, location, means of transportation all weigh in to arrive at bond amounts.

The constitution allows some latitude to be interpreted and applied by reasonable men. If I read the text of 2A literally, and then stop thinking - I could stroll through HEB with two suppressed Uzi's in my hands, pointed towards the ground. It is an extreme example, but illustrates the need for a boundary SOMEWHERE regarding the individual right to exercise the 2A, or the 6A, 8A, 1A etc.

[anygunanywhere]

The constitution allows some latitude to be interpreted and applied by reasonable men. If I read the text of 2A literally, and then stop thinking - I could stroll through HEB with two suppressed Uzi's in my hands, pointed towards the ground. It is an extreme example, but illustrates the need for a boundary SOMEWHERE regarding the individual right to exercise the 2A, or the 6A, 8A, 1A etc.

Boundaries, not complete prohibitions.

If you look at the state of the second amendment from a national perspective, we are restricted way beyond what I would consider a normal understanding of boundaries.

The pendulum has swung way too far towards prohibitions for me to accept any so called reasonable restriction as an acceptable boundary.

It would not bother me in the slightest if you wanted to carry a couple of suppressed Uzi's. You use them as an extreme example, and I understand your point, but why do we need to use such extreme examples in our discussions with each other? The antis use their extreme examples to fight us.

What is reasonable for me might not be reasonable for you, and vise-versa.

Anygun

[terryg]

Boundaries, not complete prohibitions.

If you look at the state of the second amendment from a national perspective, we are restricted way beyond what I would consider a normal understanding of boundaries.

The antis use their extreme examples to fight us.

Right. Of course. But the problem, as I see it, is that when we make verbal arguments that we should live at the extreme end of the spectrum, we lose the folk in the middle who simply do not know enough about the issue at all. We hurt ourselves because while we say 'no restrictions' in our own mind, we know that there are and should be a few. But the people in the middle, who understand why some people would want to be prepared to defend themselves, simply hear 'no restrictions' and get the images in their heads that the anti's work so hard to paint. So we actually fuel the anti's arguments with our own rhetoric- if we are not careful.

[srothstein]

There are numerous restrictions on every one of the rights. Why does the 2A get a pass, that the 1st amendment didn't? There are restrictions set on free speech?

Because the Second is the only one that is written to guarantee an absolute right. Note the wording of all of the rest. The First does not say you can say anything you want, just that Congress shall pass no law. This leaves open the possibility of other restrictions (such as state laws). The Fourth does not prohibit all searches, just "unreasonable ones". The Eighth does not mandate bail, just prohibit excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishment. These all leave open words that can be interpreted or allow for some form of restriction.

But the Second has the wording that the right "shall not be infringed." This is pretty absolute wording. It does not say right to carry responsibly, nor does it say infringed except for a state interest. No possible interpretation tot he right. It is the one written as absolute.

And, in case you cannot tell from my first paragraph, I do think the whole concept of incorporation is wrong. The way the First is written as compared to the others implies that it was the only one that was intended to restrict just the federal government. The rest, by extension say that the right is there and imply that they restrict the states as well. This is a minority opinion to be sure, but it is the way I read the wording differences. This means MacDonald was a moot point since the right cannot be infringed by any governmental agency.

[jsimmons]

A crazy idea just popped into my head so thought I'd share and add a wrinkle to the ongoing open carry debate.

If I understand police regulations correctly (one of you LEOs please correct me if my assumptions are wrong), the department you work for can not only mandate the type of gun you carry but most importantly the type of holster you use to carry it - meaning the type of retention. I'm not 100% sure what the classifications Level 1 Level 2 Level retention all mean (again, LEOs, feel free to fill in the blanks here). But here's my idea (jumped in my head reading flintknapper's response to one of Charles' open carry polls mentioning need for specific open carry training.

What if an open carry bill could pass, but it mandated that only certain types of holsters be used (to avoid the scenario of a bad-guy snatching a good guy's gun out of the holster in order to use it to commit a crime)? One of the original selling points of CONCEALED carry, as I remember, was that no one (including bad guys) would know who was and who was not carrying.

What if Open Carry Law says a) must have additional training and b) guns must be carried in a Level 3 retention holster or whatever. ??

Anyway, just another little point for all of y'all to argue about .... I'm enjoying reading from the sidelines a bit

I can live with a requirement for some kind of retention holster, but the state specifying what type of retention could get it into serious legal hassles if Texas became the first state to experience a citizen being disarmed while open-carrying. "But Texas approved my holster!"

That's kind of like California proclaiming that you must where a state-approved helmet, but then wouldn't provide a list of helmets that were "approved".

Regarding the training thing, how is a LEO going to be able to tell who does/doesn't have "additional training" without stopping them and asking for their papers?

I personally think anyone carry a gun should be sufficiently trained in it's handling and use, but that's only because it's stupid not to have said training. I saw someone at the gun show today selling "concealed carry badges". Maybe Texas should issue something like that so the LEOs don't stop the dozens of Texans that will be open-carrying.

[Liberty]

I thought Arizona had retention regs on open carry. yea or nay.

Nay,
There is no such requirement that I know of. At least I hope there isn't. I've walked around with just My Hume JIT

[EconDoc]

My objection to mandated retention holsters is simple. It opens the door for abuse too wide. It would be very simple for the rule-making authority to so limit the choice of holsters as to deprive most citizens of open carry. Just require something like a "smart" holster that hasn't even been invented yet and you have it. As for level-three retention holsters, why stop there? Why not demand something even more retentive, like the holsters with the holes to put a padlock through the trigger guard that TSA mandated for airline pilots licensed to carry on planes?

Nope! Too much room for abuse by over-zealous bureaucrats!