Are contrary views of Open Carry Verbooten on PAFOA

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by JCWohlschlag

One could easily ask, regarding the topic that started all this, “Is searching the forum for existing material verbooten?” I mean, wanting to express your point of view (and supporting reasons tend to help) is fine and is what the forum is for. Finding out if there is already a debate going on is what the search function is for.

I am shocked by someone who actively resists using the search function, claiming that people who point out that many threads already exist are rude, and they should hand-hold the person to the appropriate thread instead. That’s bullcrap. How f——king hard is it to put in “Why OC” into the search bar which is at the top of any page and realize that there are many threads that already exist. I mean, the second result you get is yet another locked topic called “Why OC” where the mods had to hand-hold yet another person and lead them to appropriate topics.

Want to know how I really feel about the subject? I feel that many of the people who post a new damned thread to hash out an old damned argument do so simply because they don’t like how the old argument panned out for their side. It’s kind of like how when you don’t like mommy’s answer, you go ask daddy instead.

ETA: The focal point of the problem isn’t that the person brought up controversial views. The problem is that they were brought up with a complete lack of internet courtesy for anyone, neither the group that agrees with him nor the group that opposes. To me, that is akin to the bastards that hit the “Reply to All” button in their email or have forwarded attachments 20 levels deep so I have to click 40 f——king times to see the email of interest.

Good post.

Just some random thoughts on this subject.

Controversy can be good it can bring a different view to a subject. Debate can talk people in or out of their position. But when a person refuses friendly help to point him or her in a direction to start looking is a bit odd. Here is a quote from the thread the op mentioned. "the point is, I don't have the time nor inclination to search through said 100's of threads to see which ones might address specifically the gist of this thread" . Does this sound like someone who really wants an answer? This thread was not closed because it was a oc vs cc thread. It was closed because there are numerous threads on the subject already. Several people tried to send the poster where to look. he more or less refused.



Open carry is not for everyone. Carrying concealed is not for everyone. Carrying a gun is not for everyone.

Here is an example of the logic used in the oc vs. cc wars.

Pa. is a big hunting state.

I personally do not like to hunt. I would wager more people are accidentally shot while in the act of hunting then ocing or ccing combined. Should I start threads condemning hunters. You shouldn't hunt it scares deer. You can buy your meat in a store. Many people do not like hunters. These people can write the legislators and get hunting banned.
People should stop hunting because it could get banned. If hunting is banned they will be after the ocers next. Then they will target ccers as well. Next thing you know, there is a total gun ban. All because you had to shoot Bambi.

[Intolerantbobj]

The rules will change ... " If it saves just one life, then it's worth it " ... how often have we all heard that line, but you can bet it will be utilized in the future to divide and conquer ..
.. " I don't O C so it doesn't affect me " ... we've all heard that before also, and thats the thinking that will sink the O C ship ... and probably drive one more nail into the Rights Coffin

[Robert Kayland]

Originally Posted by CZ40P

Quite frankly gentlemen, I am shocked! I read with great interest a thread started in the Concealed/Open Carry forum were a new member stated what I thought was a valid concern about open carry run-ins causing a backlash effect with the State Legislature.

Let me say I have supported the efforts of those who open carry in the past. I was present at the DC council meeting on May 13. I have openly carried in the past, I will openly carry in the future. Lately I to have started to wonder out loud if this will cause some kind of legislative backlash.

I was reading the thread started by Robert Kayland. I thought he made a few good points. Then he got tag teamed and the thread was closed because we can't discuss "Why OC". Everytime someone makes an argument that OC might be causing more harm than good the poster gets slammed. Why? You guys don't want to hear other opinions? Is it against forum rules to even suggest that open carry might be counter productive? Thats the way it seems to me. Mr Kayland made a few good points before you guys stuck your fingers in your ears and yelled , " La,La,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA"

Everybody says "It can't happen" They'd have to change the state constitution. Really..............How about they just change the trespassing statutes to make the signs carry the weight of law.........How about if they give local municipalities the option to ban open carry in congested areas. There are many ways to achieve any result.
Could it happen? Not Likely right now.........but what about in a few years when the face of the State Legislature changes yet again? After years of negative press over open carry, opinions may change.

Look I am not looking to get into a point/ counterpoint debate with the Open Carry Rangers. I am just saying you fellas are in the minority. You don't speak for me, you don't speak for a lot of folks on this forum. You don't speak for MOST of Pennsylvania! I am ashamed at the way Mr Kayland was bullied and shutdown.

If frank and open discussions are not allowed. If desenting opinions are stifled to create the illusion of solidarity ,then this forum is a sham and a PR tool for open carry zealots, If a handfull try and herd the discussion to fit their views, then this forum is doomed to the same fate as Packing.Org

Wow, thanks so much for lending rationality to what, for me, turned out to be quite an unpleasant experience. You've read the original thread and truly comprehended the gist of it and my intent.

As a new member, I hadn't realized the issue was so sensitive, nor had been covered according to the specifics of my initial concern about confrontational OC and some of the a "just got thrown out of the mall" type threads I had been reading here.

Just to set the record straight:
1) I wasn't attempting to "flame bait" or "troll"... that's a common excuse given by those who feel their ox has been gored, and doesn't redound to the credit of the accuser.

2) When a new member gets a curt reply "That's been covered, do a search!", well... that isn't helpful... if you really wanted to be helpful, look at the links the supermoderator posted when he closed the thread... THAT'S being helpful.

I can't know or control whether others feel like a dead horse has been beaten, and without narrowing a given search down for specifics, like the original curt poster himself admitted, 100s of threads come back... and how am I to know which ones addresses the SPECIFIC point(s) I was raising?

Those accusing me of lacking internet courtesy for not wanting to wade through 100s of posts are acting pretty hypocritical, since they couldn't be bothered to post even one or two specific links. One guy actually did nothing more than provide a link back to the top of the subforum!!!

And yet, another guy then chimes in and calls ME the jerk, because he inferred some imagined "attitude" on my part because I put certain words in quotes?

And then to top it all off, one of the ill-mannered louts posts my PM to him as a separate thread! The attempt was to laugh at me, but the last laugh was actually on him because it proved my point about who was actually the jerk... and by the way, where is that other hypocrite now who wants to talk about "internet forum etiquette?"

Well, thankfully there were many private messages from several rational fellows about the whole thing, and now I see this public thread which again restores my "faith in humanity", as it were.

In the future I'll certainly become more circumspect about the topics I discuss here... and with/to whom I exchange conversation.

[Mike]

open carry has been on the rise across the US for almost half a decade bow - and no state legislatures has moved against it - in fact, they have defeated bills to restrict OC in IN and even in Calif., and expanded OC (VA, Ohio, Kansas). OC, as noted by the U.S. S. Ct., in Heller, has been traditionally held as protected by the Second Amendment and state constitutional analogs.

The more we OC, the more we secure out rights.

[762xIan]

Wow, thanks so much for lending rationality to what, for me, turned out to be quite an unpleasant experience

Sorry you had an unpleasant experience, many of us (me included) get down right rabid when my rights are questioned,sorry about that. I will say reading the other thread I do wish some of the posters were more helpful at first though.

You posted this in the other thread...

You're missing the point, which I'll repeat here... it seems like OC invites a lot of negative response from non-armed citizens and the police... and to be honest, the concern isn't mere "busy-bodyism", given today's headlines and random violence

Again, I am and many here are, NO COMPROMISE gun owners. Compromises were made in the past and that is why we have the thousands of gun laws we do. None of which deter a crime, why? Criminals don't obey the law anyway! We do, the laws and restrictions curtail our freedoms.

Walking along, shopping, eating or whatever is no reason to be hassled for OC'ing just because some sheep soccer mom saw your gun and called the police. It is legal...just like shooting my mouth off is.

[Robert Kayland]

Well, in going over some threads on other topics, I found something very interesting.

To recap: my original precept was, even though it may technically be our right to OC, there are situations in which doing it cause undue concern amongst the population and could lead to activism by those formerly neutral about the issue... in effect, many people (those proverbial soccer moms, for example) don't think about guns and the right to bear arms, and so it's not a big deal and they wouldn't think about getting involved in the curtailing of said rights.

But if they see guys practicing their "right" to OC (and I put that in quotes because today's "right" has many times become tomorrow's legislated ban... but that's been covered enough) in places that might make the general populace uncomfortable, and then top it off with confrontational attitudes to law officers and other security personnel, well... nothing good can come of it.

That was my concern, pure and simple.

I was then told by several posters that this was ridiculous and my concerns were ill-founded.

Well, let me lay this on you... something I found in the thread about one of the members here who successfully got his LTCF reinstated after a sheriff wrongfully revoked it. Note that the case went through and the court sided with the member against the sheriff, and rightfully so according to the laws current. Good for said member, although to enforce his "right" he had to spend quite a few days of time and somewhere between $2500 to $3000 dollars... unfortunately, but that's the reality of how the system works sometimes when a sheriff doesn't know the law and tries to enforce, instead, his will.

But I digress... the point here is a very telling comment made by the judge during the hearing, which I repeat here verbatim... keep in mind this is the judge talking who has already decided that the member was within his "rights" and was allowed to carry a gun to a polling place because there was no law forbidding it:

"Personally, I'm going to contact my legislator and see if they will write a law, because if you have people walking around voting polls with firearms, you are beginning to look like a third-world country down in Venezuela or somewhere."


Gentlemen, THIS is a very specific example of what my original post about OC was trying to convey. You can disagree with the judge's opinion on the matter, you can say that the legislator(s) won't act upon it, but that's beside the point.

The point is, was, and remains that OC under certain circumstances is going to cause problems for the individual (as evinced by this court case and the expense and time for the member) and is going to get more and more otherwise neutral people to start thinking about banning it.

So I'm not advocating no OC (this isn't a black-and-white issue)... I'm recommending that those of us who cherish the few gun rights we have left be circumspect in when/how those rights are exercised and use common sense and consideration for non-arms bearers rather than the "SCREW YOU, IT AIN'T AGAINST THE LAW AND IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" attitude that some seem to have.

[fingers80002]

That is the judges quote, but did you catch what the local rep. and sen. stated?

[Robert Kayland]

Originally Posted by 762xIan

Again, I am and many here are, NO COMPROMISE gun owners. Compromises were made in the past and that is why we have the thousands of gun laws we do. None of which deter a crime, why? Criminals don't obey the law anyway! We do, the laws and restrictions curtail our freedoms.

Walking along, shopping, eating or whatever is no reason to be hassled for OC'ing just because some sheep soccer mom saw your gun and called the police. It is legal...just like shooting my mouth off is.

Trust me, we're in violent agreement about how things should be. I understand the NO COMPROMISE feelings, and I admire those willing to fight for their convictions. I do indeed salute many of you willing to 'fight the good fight', as it were.

It's just the tactics used that I worry about, and the turning tide of opinion that could eradicate what few gun rights remain for us. PA is a blessed state, in many ways... pity the citizens in those states and cities which outright ban their right to even own a firearm, let alone carry it.

Anyway, speaking only from my personal opinion, if I think OC is going to upset people at a movie or a mall or, say, a polling place... then I swallow my pride a bit and go concealed. Because otherwise a situation arises like the one mentioned in my previous post... personal hassle, expense, and even if I win, people could get 'off the fence' and start thinking about new laws.

It really does become, in most cases, simply a matter of pride.

[Robert Kayland]

Originally Posted by fingers80002

That is the judges quote, but did you catch what the local rep. and sen. stated?

I only read the court transcript, and what the judge said... I don't even know if the judge ever got around to writing the letter, or if the letter was written and the local legislators choose to ignore it for the time being... that's really not important... the issue is that the seed has been planted amongst those who formerly wouldn't have thought about new laws.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by Robert Kayland

I only read the court transcript, and what the judge said... I don't even know if the judge ever got around to writing the letter, or if the letter was written and the local legislators choose to ignore it for the time being... that's really not important... the issue is that the seed has been planted amongst those who formerly wouldn't have thought about new laws.

You really should take a little time and read through a thread you are participating in. I was the person involved, and in post #10 of this very thread I provided more 'after the fact' info.

The Judge and my County Commissioners all wrote letters to the State Representatives from my county - not asking that OC be prohibited, but that all firearms be banned. The Representatives' response was not to "ignore it for the time being", but to promptly reply that they would neither offer or support any such legislative attempts, and they were very clear in stating why they held this position.

I exercised my right to open carry while voting. I had to defend that right in court, where I prevailed. I assure you that my polling place is the one place where I will NEVER, EVER conceal my firearm again, unless the law is changed to force me to do so.

Not exercising a right for fear it will be taken away is silly. You've castrated yourself. If the government is going to try and take a right away from me, they're going to fight me every step of the way to do it. They're not going to scare me into concession with a threat of action.