News Ninth Circuit takes up challenge against California restrictions on open carry of firearms

[timthetwin]

I would like to see it overturned. However, I think CCW is still the best self protection method. I live in a rural area so open carrying while working on the property is much more comfortable and it would be nice to not have to conceal it while driving between locations.

I remember when unloaded open carrying was banned. It was used as a protest tool like 1a auditors, and it caused problems. Going to Starbucks in an area that is not pro gun while open carrying and then law enforcement showed up. It was no surprise they banned it.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Open Carry haters: let's give them an inch.

I will carry how I see fit if legal.

Open Carry of unloaded handguns was legal in CA up until 2012.

Open Carry of unloaded long guns was legal in CA up until 2016.

I doubt anyone here had a issue with it until CA made CCW a mandatory.

CCW holders, possibly the individuals that dislike the idea of Open Carry more than those that do not have CCW, on trying to gatekeep the way I see it.

 

[M_N04H]

I don't hate the idea. Do as you see fit if legal. It's just not for me. I can see it being handy in rural areas though, or even in the vehicle while driving.

 

[Jimi Jah]

I would like open carry for hiking in the woods. No one but an occasional passer by would see or notice it. It's for quick access personnel defense. Concealed is harder and slower to access. A mountain lion won't wait for you to pull it out.

 

[steves86ta]

i remember some years ago - not to long - but maybe 10ish years???

But Calguns used to hold open carry events - or not really calguns but people from calguns

it was legal at the time - but then became illegal. Am i crazy? or am I remembering correctly

 

[Anon7185]

Makes sense to defend the entire amendment instead of just half of it. In a way, CCW without open carry creates an elite group of citizens. Open carry truly allows everyone to defend themselves when in public, out hiking, etc. Without requiring permission from the government to exercise your rights under the second amendment.

Only one in here that made a comment with realistic common sense. Not surprised that these laws exist based on how people are commenting and reacting, california is the way it is because of those people.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

The way I see it, don't give them an inch or they'll take a mile

If open carry is legal then there would in theory be a lot more people around to counter the one wacko that decides to do something stupid. It would also work as a deterrent to those looking to harm. Walk into a business and the perp sees half the people are armed, might think twice.

For those that make themselves a target by allowing their gun to be taken or pulled from the holster while in a check out line or something. They need to use a different holster or rethink their carry method. Hopefully there would be bystanders around that can stop or put the perp down if they try something like that

I'm for whatever floats your boat. I see no provisions in the Constitution that allows the government to dictate the means or method one can carry. That should be an individual's choice.

I for one would likely open carry more often then concealed with a good level 2 or even 3 retention holster. Maybe when in a crowded location or where it's going to be hard to keep an eye on it all the time I might conceal it. Or maybe conceal at work if allowed.

I'm a little thin to conceal without it printing or being uncomfortable. So, I've never pursued it. Plus the cost, time and aggravation they put you through to obtain one. Open carry would be a lot more comfortable for me

 

[Ernst]

I feel like if you're country enough nobody should really care anyway. As many have already mentioned, firearms and access to them have a special purpose and place in more rural settings that I feel really should be expected.

I support the open carry concept in full, but I do have reservations about how this would play out in real life-- especially in more urban settings.

I feel like open carry would do little to nothing to improve personal or public safety in a broad sense, and we'd probably see LEO resources constantly wasted for nothing-- like when Karen sees a gun and calls it in and the story is embellished to include that person waving said gun around or making threats.

I'm much more inclined to support those dollars and legal efforts going towards the expansion of concealed carry rights and public firearms education.

 

[treelogger]

Makes sense to defend the entire amendment instead of just half of it. In a way, CCW without open carry creates an elite group of citizens. Open carry truly allows everyone to defend themselves when in public, out hiking, etc. Without requiring permission from the government to exercise your rights under the second amendment.

You are conflating open carry and permitless carry.

The US has a very long tradition that the 2A does not apply to everyone, for example certain classes of felons, or people with certain mental problems. This was clearly confirmed in Heller (the famous "long-standing" sentence) and Bruen, and made explicit in Rahimi.

And as Bruen acknowledged, exercising certain parts of the 2A (namely bear = carry) can be tied to having permits, as long as the granting of permits meets certain criteria (which the process in NYS certainly did not). So the situation we have in the US now is that certain people can not lay their hands on guns at all, and in some locations paperwork is required to carry them in public.

This is all completely separate from the discussion whether

• concealed or open carry is more suitable for the purpose of self defense (the answer is: it depends).
• open carry as a form of speech (not for the purpose of defense, often implemented as unloaded carry of functional guns) can be restricted. The Zeleny series of cases shines some light on that: Yes, it can be restricted, but local government can only enforce restrictions that are actually on the books, unlike what the Menlo Park PD did.

 

[timthetwin]

I think some of you are confusing not advocating for practicing open carrying with some of us not supporting it. I fully support it, and would open in some circumstances. However, I do not think it is tactically or safely the best option. Do you really want to be worried about weapon retention and watching your kids while at the park or the store? It would still be better to be concealed and unknown. Moreover, if something happened, witness perception would be affected with you having a gun open to view.

When I was in Alaska recently, I saw two people opening carrying. They were using less than ideal holsters, and based on their appearance I doubt they practiced weapon retention and probably not active shooting skills. I am want to see all of our 2a freedoms restored, but there is many tactical and practical concerns with open carrying.

 

[FTSheartlesssYo]

I’m all for it but I would never do it. Maybe a few scenarios. I’d rather not draw attention to myself.

 

[USMC06RET]

You are conflating open carry and permitless carry.

Nope.

The US has a very long tradition that the 2A does not apply to everyone, for example certain classes of felons, or people with certain mental problems. This was clearly confirmed in Heller (the famous "long-standing" sentence) and Bruen, and made explicit in Rahimi.

You forgot to include blacks and other minorities. Still not sure what your point is?

And as Bruen acknowledged, exercising certain parts of the 2A (namely bear = carry) can be tied to having permits, as long as the granting of permits meets certain criteria (which the process in NYS certainly did not). So the situation we have in the US now is that certain people can not lay their hands on guns at all, and in some locations paperwork is required to carry them in public.

This is all completely separate from the discussion whether

• concealed or open carry is more suitable for the purpose of self defense (the answer is: it depends).
• open carry as a form of speech (not for the purpose of defense, often implemented as unloaded carry of functional guns) can be restricted. The Zeleny series of cases shines some light on that: Yes, it can be restricted, but local government can only enforce restrictions that are actually on the books, unlike what the Menlo Park PD did.

The topic at hand is the Ninth circuit taking up the challenge to California preventing open carry by the vast majority of residents in the vast majority of situations. Any and all established precedents will be open to evaluation by the court in this appeal.

I would love to see permit-less open carry the law in California. As non-compromised residents of the state, we either have second amendment rights or we don't. The right to "bear" arms is one of the two rights clearly enumerated in the 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​

 

[USMC06RET]

I didn't see Texas on the document saying they allowed open carry. I clicked the link to their code and searched for 'open' and didn't find a reference to allowed open carry, permitless or not.

Here is a link to the Texas state law library and their law pertaining to the carry of handguns. Open or concealed, no permit required. Everyone who can legally posses a sidearm can carry a sidearm.

Guides: Gun Laws: Carry of Firearms

Information about gun laws in Texas.

guides.sll.texas.gov

 

[Mil-Dot]

Open Carry haters: let's give them an inch.

I will carry how I see fit if legal.

Open Carry of unloaded handguns was legal in CA up until 2012.

Open Carry of unloaded long guns was legal in CA up until 2016.

I doubt anyone here had a issue with it until CA made CCW a mandatory.

CCW holders, possibly the individuals that dislike the idea of Open Carry more than those that do not have CCW, on trying to gatekeep the way I see it.

Carrying an unloaded gun is the dumbest thing I have everr heard. That is 5 steps down from carrying without a round chambered which is also pointless. If you're carrying you should carry it hot and ready bc when the hits the fan everything is instinctual and time is crucial. I know from 2 personal experiences sadly and I thank myself for carrying .

 

[NorCalBusa]

Open Carry haters: let's give them an inch.

I will carry how I see fit if legal.

Open Carry of unloaded handguns a hammer was legal in CA up until 2012.

Open Carry of unloaded long guns was legal in CA up until 2016.

I doubt anyone here had a issue with it until CA made CCW a mandatory.

CCW holders, possibly the individuals that dislike the idea of Open Carry more than those that do not have CCW, on trying to gatekeep the way I see it.

FTFY.

 

[captainkelp]

I am about as pro 2A as one can be, and I am not against open carry in principle, but having been a LEO for 20 years and briefly a RSO (range safety officer) for my agency, what concerns me is gun retention issues. Even with the sworn LEOs at the range, I have seen horrible retention issues during practical exercises when the fight goes to the ground. If you train, you absolutely should be able to open carry, but if you lack the skills to retain your weapon, you probably should only carry concealed. Everything with firearms proficiency is practice and training. Having been retired for 4 years and not having to qualify quarterly anymore, I definitely have lost some basic skills in markmenship. Now, I have to qualify once a year to keep my HR218 valid, but can admit I should be training more, as most people probably also should.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

I fail to see the logic in the "some people shouldn't be able to open carry, but conceal carry is okay"

If someone is so inept that they shouldn't open carry, how is carrying concealed going to fix them?

Carry is carry. Inside , outside, left, right, upside down, whatever. I don't see how concealed carry is somehow a fix for the people who shouldn't be able to open carry

 

[timthetwin]

I fail to see the logic in the "some people shouldn't be able to open carry, but conceal carry is okay"

If someone is so inept that they shouldn't open carry, how is carrying concealed going to fix them?

Carry is carry. Inside , outside, left, right, upside down, whatever. I don't see how concealed carry is somehow a fix for the people who shouldn't be able to open carry

I do not disagree with these points. However, open carry has more considerations that demand more training and precautions.

 

[treelogger]

Still not sure what your point is?

In a nutshell: The US has a long tradition of limiting certain aspects of guns. One example is that certain forms of carry are prohibited: in general, open carry can be prohibited, as long as some form of carry is available to the general public. Another example is that carrying guns in public (whether concealed or open) can be tied to a permit. This current legal situation has been confirmed several times by the Supreme Court.

I would love to see permit-less open carry the law in California.

Please clarify: (A) Would you like to see ONLY permit-less open carry? And still require a permit for concealed carry? Or (B) Would you like to see all carry to be permit less, and you are assuming that people will want to carry open?

 

[gwb251]

I'm curious, why do you think it is a "poor tactical decision"?

People with no real training in weapons retention will become a source of weapons for the scumbags..