I think this is an important point to make. I don't know if it's the same in California, but here you can only open carry with a concealed carry license. Now, not even discussing all the classes and screenings to get said license, there was concern from the anti-gun side about "vigilante justice" and random people being shot in a dangerous situation. Almost a decade later, this has not happened. In fact, there have been no such instances where a person was shot by a man with a concealed carry license, either in anger or by accident. There's one stabbing, but I don't think the two are related.ravenshrike said:
Open Carry California
- Thread starter Tyburn Cross
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you folks look at his profile, you may notice it lists him as being from Britain, and thus his unfamiliarity with the U.S. Constitution.CM156 said:
As for the several posts related to criminals carrying Uzis (Full auto Uzis average around $10-20,000 (used), a federal background check, and a transfer stamp for another $200): It almost never happens. And if it does, they are the much easier to obtain semi automatic versions. At that point, the criminal is carrying around the equivalent of an over-sized pistol. Once again, that would only draw attention to them, which is the opposite of any criminals goal.
On another note about vigilantism: In California, it is and has been completely illegal to open carry a loaded firearm. Anyone who is caught with a loaded firearm being openly carried gets to face a lot of problems, regardless of this new law. I don't protest the new law for what it does: I protest it for its existence to begin with. That, in combination with California's restrictive CC process, make for a possible violation of the Constitution/Second Amendment/what have you.
Technically, yes. And though western movies may portray a murder on every corner, towns like Tombstone were actually pretty peaceful. Sheriffs spent more time policing drunks than dealing with shoot-outs and murderers. Almost everyone had guns, while murders, robberies, rape, and theft were comparatively nonexistent.AC10 said:
As is often quoted: "An armed society is a polite society." [http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.html]
An adage:"If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them." [http://changelog.ca/topic/If%20you%20outlaw%20guns,%20only%20outlaws%20will%20have%20guns]
Some old west crime stuff [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102438/posts]
The reasoning behind it is if everyone was armed and taught proper use of firearms, then no-one would be so willing as to pursue a life of crime, seeing as it would put their well being at risk far too much. Criminals don't want to tangle with people that are willing to put them in the ground for being wronged. It's not that everyone needs to carry a weapon, but they should be allowed to.AC10 said:
If you were to rob someone (hypothetically) would you choose the guy with a 9mm on his hip or the guy protesting to ban guns?
That said, I think that open carry and firearm ownership should come after you get through a training course, an armed man with no knowledge of what he wields is as dangerous to those that would harm him as the people he strives to protect.
I don't know of many states that allow open carry without first requiring the armed individual to have a concealed carry permit, in which case the person in question does go through quite a number of courses and does have responsibility drilled into them.Fayathon said:
It's made quite clear that anyone who carries, concealed or otherwise, in the commission of a crime if they draw their weapon without direct threat of harm.
The person with the permit for the weapon is the exact person that should be allowed to carry it wherever. Not only do statistics show that firearms owners are less likely to commit crimes, but, let's be real here, if you were going to commit a crime with a gun would you go through the trouble of buying it legally and carry it around openly?AC10 said: