I Lost

[Walther]

the majority of people aren't comfortable with open carry, and they never will be. And they vote, and they significantly outnumber us.

We should be particularly careful here in Michigan, especially since open carry is not specifically codified. It's only legal because there's no law making it illegal.

Winner.

And here are the keys:

• the majority of people aren't comfortable with open carry
• they vote, and they significantly outnumber us

Back when OC was hitting the news frequently, ie: arts beats and eats, fireworks, downriver council meetings, etc., I used to cringe everytime a story was on. I think the OC community has been lucky to this point. It'll only take one nanny bleeding heart to author a bill and get 30 more nanny bleeding hearts to co-sponsor.

[2PawsRiver]

Care to share some of your infinite wisdom in this regard?

Sure.................not with a rifle slung across your back walking through a residential neighborhood...........or carrying a shotgun into a library seems to be a couple good examples.

[2571]

Whats it matter to you? Whatever it was he could obviously afford it

+1

I thought everyone's mom taught them not to ask what someone paid for a good or service.

Even if his mom were remiss, he ought to know as an adult not to ask.

[2571]

You did not lose. Rather, you did not win on the merits. The case was dismissed on other than factual grounds.

Cops are "immune" so they legally cannot be held liable (with excedptions).

One of the ideas here is that suing a public paid employee is suing yourself as a taxpayer. That is illogical, hence the legal immunity.

You made your point.

[PeeDee]

This is the same argument that the anti oc crowd keeps bringing up. I am issuing you the same challenge as I have to others who bring it up.
Show me one example (with cite please) of a law passed, or other infringement on our rights caused by an open carrier. Just one. Unless you can do that there is no merit to your argument.

I'm not arguing. Just expressing a concern and your 'challenge' sounds a little insecure.(And why would anyone 'infringe' upon anyone's rights by OC? That's ridiculous, not germaine to the discussion and rings of a 'cowboy' attitude. Perhaps you could show me where OC has embellished or caused rights to be granted furthered or guaranteed?) Then again, I would suspect that some people have the right to be nervous or discomfitted when they see someone wandering around a busy village in the evening with a long gun over their shoulder. Or would you think their apprehension is not 'macho' enough or that they should 'assume' anyone in public with a long gun is harmless or those citizens should have been carrying concealed in preparation to start blazing away? Or maybe anyone not in the NRA and gun-savvy and a doomsday 'preppie' is a lesser citizen?

It would be better, IMO, to educate people about OC rather than shoving it down their throats, i.e. explaining the law rather than brandishing it. At least some attempt to foster understanding rather than divisiveness. Or perhaps you see that as 'unmanly' or 'ungunly?'

Actually, the law already existing, nothing has to be done to show the world one can take advantage of the law. But an M-1 in B'ham, MI? For defense? Against what threat?

IMO to press the lawful right upon people in of all places somewhere like Birmingham MI where most never had a job that dirtied or callused their hands and look upon anything machined of wood and steel that makes a loud noise and can cause dirt or dust in the air, was without value to anyone at all. What did it prove other than such displays can precipitate negative reactions from those who witness it while at the same time furthering an 'anti' attitude? And how may an increase in the 'anti' attitude precipitated by that OC incident effect CPL holders and other firearms supporter-owners? Ever think of that?

I personaly, if witnessing someone open carrying a long gun in my neighborhood, would take precautions if i did not know who they were, re: whether they were responsible enough to open carry w/o having a criminal record, etc. Else, any criminal could walk right up any street at any time under the guise (aegis?) of a law abiding open carrier and shoot who and whatever they chose.

I am pro-open carry. I don't do it but I still reserve the right to have an opinion on its ramifications in certain instances and certain places when seen in the current state of firearms bias on whatever side of the issue. If I were asked to sign an affidavit that i support OC I would gladly do so, complete with personal information sans SS#. But that doesn't mean that I can not react to someone who appears to be forcing an issue that is already legally allowed and in a village known to be rife with liberals and in a setting that hardly poses a threat to someone weaponless to begin with. I could see and support a group of OC'ers on a street corner in B'ham handing out flyers to the passersby asking if they would please read the info in the interest of understanding that people who carry guns are not threats to society. I can't see a deilberate act of challenging others to accept something that is already a given.

Re: the cops - those guys are 'under the gun' of the liberal state of 'propriety' in such affluent towns and are caught between accepting/enforcing the laws and pleasing the prissy nuances of their residents. It is almost like the police in W Palm Beach, FL Winnetka, IL or (God forbid) Chappaquiddick!! Why use such a scenario to challenge something that can't be challenged since it is constitutional to begin with?

As an aside - I wonder how many times an OC'er defended themselves or someone else from harm or worse compared to the incidents wherein concealed carry did the same?

I once carried unrestricted firearms with an authorization that precluded all state local and any other firearms law in the US and its possessions. I didn't need to show it. I didn't need to brag about it. It was merely an adjunct to a larger picture and involved no pride or semblance of a college kid wearing his sweatshirt inside-out because he didn't have any hair on his chest. I still don't have to 'show' my current rights unless I have reason to do so.

Yet, sometimes, taking pains to show one's 'rights' without those rights having been seriously threatened can make one look foolish, insecure or worse. Not always, and maybe not often. But it happens.

In short, I guess some people need to belong to a 'cause' if for no other reason than to be 'wanted.'

Go for it.

(And when that kid can go downtown Detroit in certain known neighborhoods with that loaded M-1 and strut his stuff, I might look upon the whole fiasco differently.)

[wsr]

I'm not arguing. Just expressing a concern and your 'challenge' sounds a little insecure.(And why would anyone 'infringe' upon anyone's rights by OC? That's ridiculous, not germaine to the discussion and rings of a 'cowboy' attitude. Perhaps you could show me where OC has embellished or caused rights to be granted furthered or guaranteed?) Then again, I would suspect that some people have the right to be nervous or discomfitted when they see someone wandering around a busy village in the evening with a long gun over their shoulder. Or would you think their apprehension is not 'macho' enough or that they should 'assume' anyone in public with a long gun is harmless or those citizens should have been carrying concealed in preparation to start blazing away? Or maybe anyone not in the NRA and gun-savvy and a doomsday 'preppie' is a lesser citizen?

Just look at MI itself as a whole there have been no changes in the law that suddenly made OC legal not to long ago few would OC out of fear of being arrested but now its widespread and accepted, thats from people actually exercising their right not just talking about it
While its not necessarily a good or desirable thing to make others nervous or create discomfort or fear other peoples fears and comfort level are not really my concern

It would be better, IMO, to educate people about OC rather than shoving it down their throats, i.e. explaining the law rather than brandishing it. At least some attempt to foster understanding rather than divisiveness. Or perhaps you see that as 'unmanly' or 'ungunly?'



Actually, the law already existing, nothing has to be done to show the world one can take advantage of the law. But an M-1 in B'ham, MI? For defense? Against what threat?

So you can do it just don't do it kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it

IMO to press the lawful right upon people in of all places somewhere like Birmingham MI where most never had a job that dirtied or callused their hands and look upon anything machined of wood and steel that makes a loud noise and can cause dirt or dust in the air, was without value to anyone at all. What did it prove other than such displays can precipitate negative reactions from those who witness it while at the same time furthering an 'anti' attitude? And how may an increase in the 'anti' attitude precipitated by that OC incident effect CPL holders and other firearms supporter-owners? Ever think of that?

I personaly, if witnessing someone open carrying a long gun in my neighborhood, would take precautions if i did not know who they were, re: whether they were responsible enough to open carry w/o having a criminal record, etc. Else, any criminal could walk right up any street at any time under the guise (aegis?) of a law abiding open carrier and shoot who and whatever they chose.

I would take precautions for anyone i didn't know in my neighborhood
So you are saying a criminal can't walk up a street concealing at any time and shoot who and whatever they chose????

I am pro-open carry. I don't do it but I still reserve the right to have an opinion on its ramifications in certain instances and certain places when seen in the current state of firearms bias on whatever side of the issue. If I were asked to sign an affidavit that i support OC I would gladly do so, complete with personal information sans SS#. But that doesn't mean that I can not react to someone who appears to be forcing an issue that is already legally allowed and in a village known to be rife with liberals and in a setting that hardly poses a threat to someone weaponless to begin with. I could see and support a group of OC'ers on a street corner in B'ham handing out flyers to the passersby asking if they would please read the info in the interest of understanding that people who carry guns are not threats to society. I can't see a deilberate act of challenging others to accept something that is already a given.

If its a given it wouldn't be a issue would it???

Re: the cops - those guys are 'under the gun' of the liberal state of 'propriety' in such affluent towns and are caught between accepting/enforcing the laws and pleasing the prissy nuances of their residents. It is almost like the police in W Palm Beach, FL Winnetka, IL or (God forbid) Chappaquiddick!! Why use such a scenario to challenge something that can't be challenged since it is constitutional to begin with?

They know the laws [or should] if they break them or don't follow them because of pressure from residents or city council etc, they have character issues and shouldn't be cops...

As an aside - I wonder how many times an OC'er defended themselves or someone else from harm or worse compared to the incidents wherein concealed carry did the same?

I don't know, most criminals prefer soft targets so the fact that they didn't attack in the first place is about the defense I can think of

To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

I once carried unrestricted firearms with an authorization that precluded all state local and any other firearms law in the US and its possessions. I didn't need to show it. I didn't need to brag about it. It was merely an adjunct to a larger picture and involved no pride or semblance of a college kid wearing his sweatshirt inside-out because he didn't have any hair on his chest. I still don't have to 'show' my current rights unless I have reason to do so.

Were you allowed to "show it"??

Yet, sometimes, taking pains to show one's 'rights' without those rights having been seriously threatened can make one look foolish, insecure or worse. Not always, and maybe not often. But it happens.


In short, I guess some people need to belong to a 'cause' if for no other reason than to be 'wanted.'

Go for it.

(And when that kid can go downtown Detroit in certain known neighborhoods with that loaded M-1 and strut his stuff, I might look upon the whole fiasco differently.)

I OC in the worst neighborhoods in Detroit and Flint at least once a week for the better part of the day

[Wolvee]

I OC in the worst neighborhoods in Detroit and Flint at least once a week for the better part of the day

Where do you consider to be the worst parts of Flint? lol

[motofan130]

Just because I can dress in nothing but a G-string and go for a walk doesn't mean i should.

[amontana086]

Just because I can dress in nothing but a G-string and go for a walk doesn't mean i should.

But then it will raise awareness that you can. If you don't practice your rights you WILL lose them.

Get on it noble crusader.

[wsr]

Where do you consider to be the worst parts of Flint? lol

North of Bristol and west of Center lol