PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on Open Carry, A three part series


dougwg
10-06-2008, 10:08 PM
Here is part 1 of a three-part series on Open Carry in America.

Enjoy!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Open Carry Debate - A Sheep's Eye View

This article is part 1 in a 3-part series on the continuing and ever-growing "Open carry" debate. It's been in the news a lot lately, and I suspect the focus on open carry will increase before it subsides, so we need to discuss it. Hopefully, people will keep an open mind, a clear head, and a sincere heart as they continue to form their opinions.

Many of you know that a few weeks ago I held an open carry rally in Hastings, Michigan where over 40 people attended and walked the streets openly carrying their pistols. This was my first experience with open carry and I enjoyed it. As you can imagine, I received a lot of attention from three segments of society that merit conversation: the unarmed public, police officers, and concealed carry holders.

In this commentary I'll be dealing with the unarmed public, who, for all practical purposes are defenseless sheep. In order to understand my opinion on human sheep, and to fully understand their views, let me quote from my book "Blood in the Streets: Concealed Carry and the OK Corral".

"Sheep are born and bred for one purpose: to be killed and to have their parts processed into something useful by predators. They stand on the hill and go "Baa", as they're being slaughtered."



Now, first off, we have to understand that sheep disagree with the above statement. They believe they were born and bred to go to college, get a good job, make money, and raise a family who will then grow up themselves and perpetuate the flock. And of course they're right as well. We're both right, from our certain narrow points of view.

So why is there always such a huge disagreement between the unarmed public and those of us who carry pistols for self defense?

Enter the wolf. The wolf changes our perfect world into a world of danger. The wolf requires that some sheep grow fangs. The wolf changes everything.

As Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman has so astutely pointed out:

"We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world."

I recall that as the concealed carry movement swept over our country, state by state like a cleansing wave, the sheep, almost without exception, were very quick to cry out their protests in one loud Baa! "No! No! Don't let them carry guns! We'll all be killed!"

History now tells us the vocal flock was wrong, and by and large, the sheep are beginning to tolerate the act of concealed carry for personal and family defense. So, if the flock accepts concealed carry (that is, people secretly carrying guns within the flock) then why are they so adamantly opposed to open carry? After all, guns are guns whether concealed or open. Right?

I think the answer lies in an email sent to me last week by a terrified sheep.

"I was around during that terrible display when you had your little gun rally and I want you to know that if I ever see anyone in the grocery store with a gun I will call the police. I feel threatened when I see a gun and feel that it's a threat to my safety. I don't think that the 2nd amendment supersedes other people's right to not have to see a gun or be around one."

Now, it's interesting to note that I know this man, and I walk into his store quite often. He knows that I'm always armed and has never expressed fear. In fact, on one occasion he even asked me to teach him how to shoot. I saw him as a potential convert.

So what's the big difference? Why does he tolerate concealed carry, but not open carry? Once again Lt. Colonel David Grossman has the answer for us:

"The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land."

Even though this man knows he is safe with me, he will call the police if he sees my gun. Is this irrational? Of course! Is he being consistent to his sheep-like personality? Absolutely!

He knows he's a sheep. He knows he's defenseless against anyone with a gun. I have a gun, therefore, in his way of thinking, I am a constant reminder that he is defenseless. His view is irrational, based solely on feelings, but also consistent with his sheep-like personality and his past views on concealed carry. Remember, it was this same sheep who fought hard to stifle concealed carry. He now accepts concealed carry simply because for many years we have walked among the flock and the sheep were not harmed. But this is where the sheep analogy breaks down; because people are not really sheep. They can think; they can learn; and they can change.

In my opinion, the sheep will one day accept open carry just as they do concealed carry. But first they must be educated and desensitized to the sight of that awful, bad, mean "gun"! It will be a slow train coming, but it will come. Yesterday I was giving a radio interview and the talkshow host confided that when he was in Arizona, he saw many people walking around openly carrying pistols on their hips. At first it made him nervous and he didn't like it. But, after a few days of seeing it, he was no longer afraid. It was only then he noticed the terrified looks of other tourists who were seeing open carry for the very first time.

Yes, the sheep are restless. But the solution isn't to cater to the irrational fears of ignorance. The solution is the sensitive, responsible caring actions of sheepdogs who open carry. Whether you agree or disagree with open carry, the movement will succeed or fail based on its own actions. This is their battle to win or to lose.

But here is my bottom line: if they lead with wisdom and integrity, the sheep will follow. After all, that's what sheep do.

SKip Coryell
www.mwtac.com
www.skipcoryell.com

dougwg
10-06-2008, 10:09 PM
Open Carry Debate Part 2 - The Armed Citizen's View

This installment of my commentary is a difficult one to write. Primarily because there are as many different views as there are armed citizens. Over the past week I've received dozens of emails from concealed carry holders, and their responses travel the full spectrum from: "Open Carry! Yes! Preach it! We have the right!" all the way over to "Open Carry will kill us all. It's just a bunch of macho jerks who want to flaunt their guns!"

Most of us, I suspect, are somewhere in between the two extremes.

The more typical response I'm getting is revealed by this email from a concealed carry holder near Detroit, Michigan. Here is an excerpt:

"I guess I fall into the "Sheepdog" category as you define it (the gray beard seems appropriate to that image, too). I will support those who choose open carry, but cannot make that choice for myself. My objection boils down to one question: "Why advertise to the wolves?" I'd prefer that my armed status remain a surprise, especially if I need to make use of it."

He supports the right, but questions the tactical wisdom of it. Of course, open carry proponents argue that displaying a firearm is a useful deterrent. Unfortunately, I think that's a claim that is hard to prove except through personal experience. How can you possibly prove something didn't happen, that is, a crime did not occur because the bad guy was scared off? That leaves it open to opinion and speculation. In the end, each armed citizen will make his own decision as to how they carry.

It would be interesting to see the results of an objective survey with one answer allowed for the following question:

"Do you support the right to carry a pistol openly?"

Yes.
No.
Yes, but with reservations.
Based on my emails from the past week, I suspect that most people would vote for answer number 3.

Of course, not all of my email was positive or even neutral. I always seem to get a few people who strongly disagree with me or who even think I'm a foolish nut job.

I recall several months ago I received a scathing email from a reader who totally disagreed with my commentary. Here is a portion, with minor changes to respect the privacy of the author:

"I submit that an educated and "prominent" writer would have found better literary devices to make the points, unless, of course, the author is being deliberately condescending."

In retrospect, I was not being condescending, though I can understand why he may have misconstrued my purpose. I always have to be careful when I write, because people who don't know me personally are left to their own imaginations. Bottom line is, a commentary is provocative and opinionated by nature. More importantly, I touched the reader and made him think and feel, even though it took the form of lightning to a steel rod.

I used to be devastated by dissent, and it would cause me to slump into prolonged periods of not writing at all. When I shared my feelings with Ted Nugent (perhaps the biggest lightning rod in America) he gave me some very sage advice:

"Never fortify yourself against meaningful critique. There is some wisdom there. Upgrade is limitless. Carry on!"

I took that advice to heart and it gave me the courage to write about such a controversial topic as open carry. I know going in that a few armed citizens will ridicule me for it, but that's the risk that one takes in this business. What a boring world it would be if everyone agreed with me. What could I possibly write about?

Finally, let's talk about the political types who are constantly analyzing, gauging, lifting their finger to the wind and checking the political pulses of citizens and legislators alike. Here is a valued excerpt from someone whom I trust both personally and politically:

"It's always a game of inches...arguing in any direction to gain the inch is not bad strategy when you've lost the battles to date (as the anti's have). Since no one will be able to effectively argue that 'open carry' helps in self-defense if you're armed anyway ('quicker draw' and 'intimidation of potential threats' will work against us...and the anti's know it), we're cooked. The conclusion will be that we're just a bunch of hotdogs looking to strap iron to our legs...a die-hard perception to this day. In other words, it will turn the heads of those 'average voters' that looked the other way and 'let us' win last time...right back at us. Flash steel and rub their noses in it and that will change...and Legislators--in the face of law enforcement struggling to keep a straight face--will prevail."

This, also is sage advice, coming from a person I respect, and someone in the position to gauge the political pulse. This is meaningful critique, and I will take Ted's advice and not fortify myself against it. I'll throw it into the mix with everything else before I come to a well-thought-out conclusion, as I hope you will as well.

The concern of many concealed carry holders is this: That all the gains we've fought so hard to achieve will be lost if people openly carry. The argument is that one idiot playing with his gun will accidentally shoot a kid and then it's Katie bar the door, because all manner of gun-control hell will be unleashed upon us.

That is a very real and valid fear. But hasn't that fear always been with us? Every time I read a news story about some idiot illegally brandishing a pistol or about a road rage situation, I feel that adrenaline surge deep in the pit of my stomach as I think to myself "Dear God, please don't let it be a concealed carry holder." Because I know that the anti's would have a field day with it and make political hay.

However, I have to point out that by and large, that hasn't happened with concealed carry, and I suspect that neither will it happen with open carry. Now I could be wrong, but experience has taught me that honest, law-abiding gun owners are nothing to be feared, whether carrying openly or concealed.

But I fully understand the concerns and fears surrounding the sometimes controversial practice of open carry, because I share them. On the other hand, I wonder, how did America get to the point where the right to keep and bear arms would be considered controversial? That's the topic of a whole nuther commentary.

Keep those emails coming, even if you think I'm foolish. Sometimes, those make for the most interesting reading. Next week we delve into the final segment of this series as we explore the views of law enforcement and open carry.

SKip Coryell
www.mwtac.com
www.skipcoryell.com

dougwg
10-06-2008, 10:12 PM
Open Carry Debate Part 3 - A Cop's Eye View

I love my family. I have a 2-year old little boy and he's cuter than the dickens. I have 4 other kids whom I love and, of course, my wife, Sara, she's the best. I would willingly, without hesitation, give my life to protect any of them from harm. Every police officer I know feels the same way about their own family. They are husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and they love their families every bit as much as we civilians love ours.

Despite that great love we have in common, I'm beginning to notice a bit of animosity between armed civilians and law enforcement. Some armed citizens resent the way a few rogue police officers view them with suspicion. Conversely, a few police officers resent the way civilians are allowed to openly carry firearms. In my opinion, there is room for improvement on both sides.

Being a Second Amendment activist and a firearms instructor, I've had occasion to become friends with quite a few officers. I am happy to report that almost all of them supported our right to keep and bear arms. But my personal experience is limited and I wanted to draw on a larger cross section for this commentary, so I did some research. I registered on a police internet talk forum. I went to their "Ask a Cop" section and here is how they answered my questions:

What do you think when you see a civilian carrying openly?
"I think it's someone who is trying to make a political point in a very irresponsible way."
"It seems to me that open carry is a fast way to an open casket. As has been stated when the shooting starts, the one with the visible weapon is the first target. As an officer, if I'm in a bad situation."

Do you see him as a threat? Do you assume certain things?
"I don't necessarily see a person carrying openly as any more of a threat than a person carrying concealed. A lot of people carry concealed with no problems."

Does open carry make your job more difficult?
"The biggest problem would be that many citizens will call 911 when they see the gun being carried out in the open. Now, as an Officer, I have to at least contact the person with the gun to see what's up. That's not a problem if the man with the gun acts reasonably and is willing to understand that I need to do my job and do it safely."
"I'm sure that the pretext stop on someone carrying just to check if the person is legal, is going to be a pain in the rear, because you know that the bad guys will start to carry openly also."
"There are places where such open carry may be 'socially appropriate' but, in today's urban-based society, these are few and far. An 'open carry' in parts of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho or Texas will be of far less concern than in Oakland, Los Angeles, downtown Dallas, or Miami ... I feel much the same way about someone openly carrying a large knife, a ball bat, a Samurai sword, an axe or a chain saw; does the item, locale and behavior fit the situation?"

As you can see, there are as many different opinions as there are cops, so what exactly is the "Cop's-Eye View" on open carry? A few days ago I was golfing with my County Sheriff, so during our 4 hours on the course, I picked his brain for a more balanced and realistic view. In his opinion it all depends on the jurisdiction - that is, the more rural the setting, the more acceptable open carry. People in the country grow up using guns, so they are not afraid of them, whereas, people in the city associate guns with crime. I tend to agree with the Sheriff's analysis.

Does that mean we should never carry in cities? No, of course not. It just means that you might be hassled by police officers if you do. Let's face it, law enforcement is not the easiest job in the world. Most of a cop's clientele are the lowest of the low, the bottom feeders of society. A police officer can quickly become distrusting and suspicious. I don't blame him. I probably would too.

On the other hand, law enforcement isn't supposed to be easy. It has always been difficult and it always will be. Nothing will ever change that short of a total loss of freedom. They are the messengers, enforcing laws which, in some cases, shouldn't even exist. Because of this, Police will usually see people at their worst.

Nonetheless, there are a few cops who just don't understand the concept of civil liberty. I wish I didn't have to mention them, but I'd be derelict if I didn't. Just a month ago, Chris Fetters was arrested in the city of Grand Haven for obeying the law. Yes, you heard me right. He was arrested for obeying the law. He was openly carrying within the city limits. Two officers came up behind him, each grabbed an arm and they threw him against a wall pinning him there while disarming him. To his credit, Chris didn't resist. They took him to be interrogated, detaining him for an hour. He tried to explain that open carry was legal, but the officers insisted he was in violation of a city ordinance. They confiscated his Glock and wouldn't listen to him. Chris will be in court this week defending his freedom in every sense of the word.

Ironically, it was the Grand Haven Police Department who was in violation of the law and not Chris Fetters. The ordinance they cited him with is unenforceable since it violates the Michigan Firearms Pre-emption Law. Chris now has a lawyer. I'll keep you posted on that one.

Like I said, there is room for improvement on both sides.

People who want to open carry, even though it is undeniably legal in 44 states, must do so with the understanding that a few police officers will arrest them. They must be patient; they must be kind; and they must be compliant and cooperative as they're being hauled away in handcuffs. Let's face it, if you want to be point man on open carry, or any other controversial political movement, you're going to pay a price. Ask Rosa Parks - she'll tell you.

Police officers need to educate themselves and accept the fact that their jobs are difficult. Yes, I understand why open carry makes it tough for you, and while I sympathize with you, I'm not about to give up my right to keep and bear arms to make your job easier.

However, I will do my best to shorten your discomfort by helping to educate the numb nuts who keep dialing 911 because they see someone obeying the law. They are the real problem. It's not the open carriers and it's not the police. It's the gutless, ignorant sheep who insist on their unconstitutional right to "feel" safe. In my opinion, the best way to feel safe, is to be safe! Take an NRA pistol course, get some marksmanship instruction, then buy a pistol and take responsibility for your own safety.

In my way of thinking, it's time the three sides: police, open carriers, and sheep, all got together. Stop the ignorance and fear. Start seeing one another as humans and not as political pawns. After all, when the rubber meets the road, we're just mothers and fathers, husbands and wives - we're just people who want to live through the day and come home safely to the families we love.

SKip Coryell
www.mwtac.com
www.skipcoryell.com

Skip Coryell lives with his wife and children in Michigan. He is the author of five books including Blood in the Streets: Concealed Carry and the OK Corral, the hunting novel Bond of Unseen Blood, and the Second Amendment novel We Hold These Truths. He is an NRA Instructor and co-owner of Midwest Tactical Training, teaching concealed pistol classes in both Michigan and Iowa. To find out more about Skip, his classes and his writing, go to www.skipcoryell.com and www.mwtac.com .

sixhundredrr
10-06-2008, 11:13 PM
Nice article.

dougwg
10-08-2008, 02:25 PM
I thought so too. I would have figured more people would offer comments on it though.

springerdave
10-08-2008, 04:23 PM
I wish I could write like that. I could almost hear "America The Beautiful" in the background.springerdave

Kimberguy1371
10-09-2008, 12:56 AM
great article!

"There are places where such open carry may be 'socially appropriate' but, in today's urban-based society, these are few and far. An 'open carry' in parts of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho or Texas will be of far less concern than in Oakland, Los Angeles, downtown Dallas, or Miami ... I feel much the same way about someone openly carrying a large knife, a ball bat, a Samurai sword, an axe or a chain saw; does the item, locale and behavior fit the situation?"

Bad cop! no! not the same!!! who carries a chain saw for self defense? hell you need more defense in the city then you do on BFE... ok no really, i'm going to bed now

Al Lowe
10-09-2008, 10:46 AM
The only thing I would point out, is that in Texas, OC is still ILLEGAL. Unless you're on your own property. But, otherwise, great article. :D

ghostrider
10-09-2008, 09:59 PM
I read these articles when they come out in the email alerts that MCRGO sends out. I think that Skip did us all a good service by writing them, as it was only a month or so before that there was a negative article from the same source.

One step at a time.

"I submit that an educated and "prominent" writer would have found better literary devices to make the points, unless, of course, the author is being deliberately condescending."

Hmmmm, I wonder who wrote that.:roll: