open carry

[Ruger]

The only firearm logo I use . . . it is my Cell Phone Wallpaper . . . but look closer and I have a magpul phone case in olive drab . . .

[redhawk4]

If you ever need to defend yourself on the street your best bet is a concealed pocket pistol with your hand in the pocket and already on the piece because you've detected a potential threat. If the threat manifest itself you draw and shoot. You already have the pistol in your grip so reaction time is fast and surprise is on your side. If the perceived threat doesn't occur you can take your hand out of the pocket (no harm, no foul, no presenting a weapon charge) and go about your business. The only times I open carry is hiking, hunting, fishing or working in a gun store.

Best Regards,
ADP3

This.  Someone said that is YOUR opinion.  Well, it is also MY opinion.  I also like coat pocket carry for hammerless j frame.  You can shoot right through your pocket if you need to.  And won't that be a surprise?

Just because you can open carry doesn't mean you necessarily should IMO. I see a number of negatives, firstly, I don't believe it helps the cause of responsible gun owners when I see a bunch of youngsters with their first handguns open carrying in Walmart, they are usually a very poor advertisement for gun owners. Secondly, as others have stated, I prefer the first time anyone sees my gun is when it's in my hand very shortly before it goes bang, if necessary. Thirdly having your firearm on display could make you the first person who gets shot if something kicks off as the perpetrator(s) decide to immediately eliminate an obvious threat. Fourth, it takes away your options in an incident, let's say you are in a gas station store and an criminal with a gun enters to rob the place, with a concealed weapon you could choose to do nothing, if no one seems in immediate danger, bide your time, until an opportunity arises when you can't get the jump on the bad guy - if he comes in with a gun and you are standing there with a gun then, then there's most likely going to be an immediate confrontation. Fifth, I believe it could in some circumstances have you targeted, to take your gun from you by criminals and in general leaves you open to the risk of someone making a grab for your firearm.

From a defensive viewpoint the time I see open carry working as a deterrent is when you have a number of people all carrying. For example some of the gun shops I visit have staff all openly carrying a sidearm, any would be criminal would have to be pretty desperate to choose a location with 4 or 5 armed personnel. This could apply to numerous situations and events where many people carrying guns is going to be a deterrent.

I'm not against open carry, but I feel some overlook the negatives, in their enthusiasm to make a point.

[Canoeal]

Yep, a polo, or tee, with just the NAA eagle would do me fine...Just a small one on the left pocket area (no need for the pocket)...Someone with graphics skills please feel free to help...

[Ruger]

. . . . . . . I prefer the first time anyone sees my gun is when it's in my hand very shortly before it goes bang,  . . . . .

I agree

[Ruger]

Yep, a polo, or tee, with just the NAA eagle would do me fine...Just a small one on the left pocket area (no need for the pocket)...

I've had her embroider my initials on polo shirts in the past, but on the left sleeve.  A small NAA eagle in the same place is what I have thought would be OK.  Can't say anyone would know what it was. Dang, I have had people ask me who made my mini; doubt if many, then, would recognize the NAA logo.

[WECSOG]

It seems myself and Bigbird agree about Open Carry.  Of course I may be mistaken as I don't spend a lot of time in these threads except to check out how things are proceeding.

Bad Guys want folks they can take easily, they don't want people that they feel might be able to defend themselves.  I used to lived on the South Side of Chicago, this is a very dangerous area to be in if you are whiter than others and tend to be out after dark.  I had to work though as I wasn't able to just sit around and get paid for doing nothing and I wasn't a drug dealer so I worked.  Often that meant walking home after dark, I didn't even own a car then, way too much money and I was working three jobs just to have money to eat and pay rent and bills.  I walked by gangstas and all the bad folks and walked with my head up, meeting eyes of them and walking confidently as I went by keeping sure they weren't going to do me harm.  Yeah, I did keep a pocket knife with a very sharp blade and easy to flick open on me at all times but they usually had guns, no permits for regular folks in Chi-Town and gangsta don't care if it is against the law.  No one ever bothered me or made any move on me, ever.  Sure, back then I was a really big guy and was extremely strong but that does nothing against a firearm.

My Point, the bad guys want people that they feel can be taken EASILY.  Often I would walk some of the older women who lived in or near my building to and from the store, carrying their groceries.  It was to protect them and some of them were GREAT cooks and would often invite me for a great meal for doing this for them.  I was a bachelor and so I would go and eat a decent share, never glutting as they too ere poor.  Then head back home or to work.

While open carry is legal (with permit) in Texas, I have not seen a single example since the law came in.  In fact, I am told that in most permit classes, the newbies are warned against it.  I am for having the open carry law, in fact don't mind seeing the 'open carry folks'  take advantage of it.  I am old and much slower in reaction time, so I figure if someone comes in to rob or shoot up the place, I figure he/she will shoot the open carry guys first and give me a chance to take cover and use my concealed piece.

Why do you need a permit to open carry? thats weird.
I think this is the wrong way to think. Bad guys are basically cowards and prey on the weak. If they see you have a gun they know your going to fight back and in all likelihood will turn tail and run. Its been shown over nad over again that most of the time this is what happens.

I'm in this camp too. And over the course of 30+ years, I have been in a few situations where the sight of my open carried firearm caused one or more BGs to immediately stop what they were doing and look for easier pickings.

[top dog]

Redhawk,
Very well put and I agree with you.

As always,there are pros and cons on this subject but in my opinion,it depends on the location and situation.

Down in the south east,open carry seems to be the norm,but again it depends on the location. Rural areas yes,cities,not so much.

                                                                                                       Top Dog

[RICKS PLACE]

Hey Big bird, In answer to your question of "why a permit to carry open", why a permit at all?  The 2nd Amendment says "to keep and BEAR arms," no permit mentioned.  Maybe with enough Republicans on the high courts, the permit will go the way of the Texas poll tax.
For open carry, as I said, I am for OC being legal.  I guess my concern is how many cops are being shot while packing an open gun. I get the feeling that many on this forum somehow feel a bad guy will see his weapon and run in fear.  If they kill a cop, at least in Texas, they may be looking at a needle.  Kill a citizen, maybe not so much.  Maybe you think you will strike more fear in them than a trained pistol packing LEO.  Maybe it has something to do that most seasoned LEO's I know usually sit with their back to a wall and/or when eating with another LEO sit where one could watch the other's back. 

[billmeek]

In 2017 128 officers died in the line of duty with 44 of those being shot and killed.  That's one of the lowest numbers in 5 decades. 

Reference: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/12/28/number-officers-killed-2017-hits-nearly-50-year-low/984477001/

You also have to acknowledge that LEOs often put themselves in situations to where they are more likely to be fired upon than the average citizen.

The phrase "trained pistol packing LEO" bothers me.  I've been on the range with LEOs that are damned good shots.  I've also seen LEOs that, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm.  I blame the officers less than the government.  Some officers only practice is when they qualify each year.  The departments should have funds to allow for mandatory range time and training for all personnel that will carry a firearm at any time. 

[Warthog]

Bill, I have been at the range and seen both too.  Some I tended to leave the range as they were so bad at pointing guns at people I thought they would shoot me and a few I have even let try out my firearms as they were great!

LEOs have a very hard job and I support them and even try to give the widows and others involved a bit of my meager money to try to help them out.

[Bigbird48]

Hey Big bird, In answer to your question of "why a permit to carry open", why a permit at all?  The 2nd Amendment says "to keep and BEAR arms," no permit mentioned.  Maybe with enough Republicans on the high courts, the permit will go the way of the Texas poll tax.
For open carry, as I said, I am for OC being legal.  I guess my concern is how many cops are being shot while packing an open gun. I get the feeling that many on this forum somehow feel a bad guy will see his weapon and run in fear.  If they kill a cop, at least in Texas, they may be looking at a needle.  Kill a citizen, maybe not so much.  Maybe you think you will strike more fear in them than a trained pistol packing LEO.  Maybe it has something to do that most seasoned LEO's I know usually sit with their back to a wall and/or when eating with another LEO sit where one could watch the other's back.

HERE IN  AZ, no permits required for open or concealed. When I go into a restaurant alone I always pick aback booth and  sit back to the wall so I can see the whole place.   

[Honky Tonk Man]

Same here as far as sitting with my back to the wall.  I've instinctively done that all my life.  My wife knows and always leaves that seat to me in a restaurant. 

MI has been making moves to eliminate the need for CPLs (Concealed Pistols License) to carry concealed, but doesn't want to eliminate them for those who want them.  The only reason to want a CPL is for traveling thru other states that require one.  No permit to open carry needed because there are no laws to prevent it.   

[OV-1D]

Hey Big bird, In answer to your question of "why a permit to carry open", why a permit at all?  The 2nd Amendment says "to keep and BEAR arms," no permit mentioned.  Maybe with enough Republicans on the high courts, the permit will go the way of the Texas poll tax.
For open carry, as I said, I am for OC being legal.  I guess my concern is how many cops are being shot while packing an open gun. I get the feeling that many on this forum somehow feel a bad guy will see his weapon and run in fear.  If they kill a cop, at least in Texas, they may be looking at a needle.  Kill a citizen, maybe not so much.  Maybe you think you will strike more fear in them than a trained pistol packing LEO.  Maybe it has something to do that most seasoned LEO's I know usually sit with their back to a wall and/or when eating with another LEO sit where one could watch the other's back.

HERE IN  AZ, no permits required for open or concealed. When I go into a restaurant alone I always pick aback booth and  sit back to the wall so I can see the whole place.

   I do the same thing at restaurants .... I make sure my laser can touch each and every patron and beyond n case .

[boots]

I mostly follow Ruger's guide lines. I carry OWB most of the time with either an untucked shirt or a jacket. Sometimes after church I stop to buy something and I have my coat off when I go in, so I am open carrying then. A couple of years ago we were going hunting up North and the other truck had a bunch of stickers on it. It got stopped twice before we got thru MD.

[SteveZ-FL]

The open-carry debate is always an interesting one. 

Non-LEO open-carry used to be for rural convenience.  By and large, folk open-carry in rural situations because it's easier to access a  handgun from an open holster when having to engage a fast-moving four-legged opponent.  Rural open-carry also includes not having to remove the open-holstered handgun and vehicle-secure it before entering a local store or facility on the way to/from home.  In a rural (even a semi-rural) setting, there is no impiied threat to the two-legged population as it is understood and accepted that the open-carried handgun is a common tool used to engage four-legged critters.  Open-carry folk are rarely seen as a potential threat to the rural two-legged population.  Now, if the rural four-legged population could perceive the difference between the human who open-carried and who didn't open-carry, that four-legged population might react differently to the potential human threat.

Urban open-carry has been primarily and historically limited to uniformed LEOs and some uniformed private security folk.  The key word here is "uniformed."  In an urban environment where non-uniformed open-carry is rare, open-carry by non-uniformed folk is a blatant attention-getter, identifying that open-carrier as someone ready or out to engage two-legged critters, since the availability of four-legged targets is quite rare in most urban settings.  The fact that urban folk may perceive the non-uniformed open-carrier as a potential threat should not be surprising, as the only logical and practical reason (to most folk) why a non-uniformed person would open-carry in an urban setting is because the non-uniformed person may soon engage two-legged opponents since there is a paucity of four-legged ones.   

The two-legged urban population has no reason to trust that the non-uniformed open-carrier is prudent, skilled and knowledgeable in target selection.  In this day-and-age of urban shootings of all kind against the two-legged population, seeing non-uniformed folk open-carrying any kind of firearm where only two-legged targets exist can instantly create fear to some degree. Thus, the urban population's response (best case) is to call uniformed (trusted) open-carriers to interdict the non-uniformed open-carrier or (worst case) to take some form of overt preemptive action against the non-uniformed open-carrier.  Let's face it, if someone perceives him/herself (rightly or wrongly) as a potential target, the response may escalate a situation to out-of-control despite no intended threat exists.  It's not too much of a stretch to even anticipate a marginally-skilled/trained urban concealed-carrier taking preemptive action towards a non-uniformed open-carrier.

Interestingly, to those folk who do open-carry in urban areas, what do you think when you see someone you don't recognize open-carrying across the street, in the mall, going into or out of a store, etc.?  Is the thought "hey, s/he's cool" or "no big thing, that's legal" or do the internal warning bells go off? 

Just because being able to do something is "legal" doesn't necessarily make always doing that thing a wise move.  Seeing the world only through one's own eyes distorts reality.

[Doc Holliday]

The Open carry rally in FL I think is do to a group of guys fishing and open carrying, they were harassed, hand cuffed and made to go thru a bunch of BS by local cops, for doing something that was perfectly legal. I don't think that the police should harass people for no reason sorry. Remember "WE THE PEOPLE" not we the police or we the government. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS and as long as we are not engaged in any ILLEGAL activity we have the RIGHT to be left alone. The police have rules that they are suppose to follow and many times they don't, they just think they can do what they want because they have a badge.
Seriously guys how many of you would not care if you were legally open carrying and the Police grabbed you hand cuffed you and made you sit on the ground while they fiddle farted around for an hour or more trying to find something to hold you on.
I haqve never  had a problem with Police but I've watched tons of videos were they over step their authority.If we let them then they think its OK. So these rallys are a good thing it let evrybody know we will not have our rights taken away.

Guess it depends on the cop. As an LEO, I once happened on a fellow illegally target shooting in a park. No one else around! As it happened I pulled into the park with both cruiser windows open! A couple of his rounds came in my drivers window, passed by my nose and exited the passenger window! I did not cuff or arrest this guy, but I did come very close to soiling myself! LOL! I did give him a lengthy lecture on gun saftey! After he left, I gave myself a lengthy lecture on dumb actions by cops! LOL!
Situational awareness folks, especially for know it all cops!
Doc Holliday

[autofull]

no open carry fer me. i want no one to know im heeled. hadda permit fer over 42yrs now. thats just me.

[Bigbird48]

Steve I disagree with your thoughts on open carry rural vs non rural  I see open carry very often by no uniforms in stores and out in the open in Phoenix very often. I never felt threatened , Its there constitutional right to carry anyway they want. The more people that do carry the more the skeptics and Libs will get use to it and not see it as a threat. I have my ccp so I can travel mines good in 36 or more states but anyone from any other state can come to Arizona and carry open or concealed with out any permits . The day should come were we can carry everywhere in all states with out being stopped or threatened by the uniformed guys.Google how many unarmed legal citizens are gunned down each year by police. Police shoot an avg of 20 unarmed people each year and about a 1000 people get shot by police each year.Allmost all public shooting are suicides , domestic disputes or gang on gang shooting.Very few people get shot just because someone pulled out a gun and sho0t them for no reason.So I feel more safe from the general public that open carrys then from the cop who approches me wants to know why I have a gun and ileagally violates my constitutiona rights  

[billmeek]

what do you think when you see someone you don't recognize open-carrying...

<begin thought process>
Do they look like they are a threat (casing the store, etc.).  No?

Then...

What gun is that?  Why did they select it?  Do I need, want, or desire one? 

What holster is that?   Why did they select it?  Do I need, want, or desire one? 

I wonder what kind of ammo they are carrying in that pistol? 
<end thought process>

More than once I've asked some of these questions to the person I noticed carrying.  Once it caused an over 30 minute conversation standing in a convenience store.

[RogueTS1]

It depends on how the person armed is acting. If he is pushing a cart around and filling it up with groceries; I think nothing of it. In fact I see it around our parts all the time. Now if the guy is just walking around eyeing everybody I may be a bit more cautious.

I look at this as just one of the prices we pay for our freedoms. If that guy goes mad and starts shooting people so be it. Hopefully the other armed people make short work of him but that is life in our Republic and we must embrace it for what it is. Those of us who worry and think we must be able to do something to make ourselves more safe from these unlikely scenarios need to turn in their weapons and join the left.

We must be able to stand up for ourselves without feeling the need for Big Brother to take care of us.

PS: how here have ever actually seen qualification day for a Police force? It is a scary scene most of the time.

[billmeek]

I saw a police qualification a long, long time ago.  One of the shooters took considerably longer than was allowed and still "qualified to carry".

[SteveZ-FL]

Steve I disagree with your thoughts on open carry rural vs non rural  I see open carry very often by no uniforms in stores and out in the open in Phoenix very often. I never felt threatened , Its there constitutional right to carry anyway they want. The more people that do carry the more the skeptics and Libs will get use to it and not see it as a threat. I have my ccp so I can travel mines good in 36 or more states but anyone from any other state can come to Arizona and carry open or concealed with out any permits . The day should come were we can carry everywhere in all states with out being stopped or threatened by the uniformed guys.Google how many unarmed legal citizens are gunned down each year by police. Police shoot an avg of 20 unarmed people each year and about a 1000 people get shot by police each year.Allmost all public shooting are suicides , domestic disputes or gang on gang shooting.Very few people get shot just because someone pulled out a gun and sho0t them for no reason.So I feel more safe from the general public that open carrys then from the cop who approches me wants to know why I have a gun and ileagally violates my constitutiona rights

There's a perceptive difference on openly-displayed firearms by folk who have been well-trained on their use, either as kids taught very early to respect and safely use firarms or as young adults in a military/paramilitary environment where safety and proper use become second-nature.  At one time (the "draft" days and earlier) a large segment of the male population which did not grow up as firearms-trained kids (especially urban kids) got the latter experience, but that generation is now in its Social Security years and dwindling.  Today's population below-60-years-old is dramatically void of that firearms respect and understanding which many of us take for granted based on our life experience. 

We're in general agreement on Second Amendment rights.  However, having rights brings with it a responsibility to exercise those rights without doing harm, intentional or otherwise.  One cannot exercise anything responsibly without education/training on how to do it safely and efficiently.  That (to me, anyway) means all Constitutional rights require mandatory instruction on their application.  Without such instruction, the rights become twisted, abused, diluted or taken away.

It's hilarious (again, to me) that we can have mandatory public-funded sex education in schools, but no true civics education on our Constitution, especially on the Bill of Rights and why each Amendment exists.  Today's public (especially the urban folk) seems more worried about insufficient condom education than insufficient freedom-maintenance education.  Such civics-limited education (especially on the Second Amendment, as this forum is so oriented) seems that the wrong gun has become the focus of today's society.

Open-carry in many locales is often viewed as a fearful sight because we have let the general population develop a fear based on firearms-ignorance.  There is no required training or education as to why a citizen-militia (as opposed to a standing army) needs to exist to maintain freedoms.  Today's populace overall is believing less and less in the 'We, The People" concept, but more in "It, The Government" as the true ruler, and that's due to a national ignorance in civics. 

Things are getting worse, not better, in today's schools regarding the Second Amendment.  The response to public school shooting incidents has been the increasing school-conducted indoctrination of kids from a young age to be scared to death at the sight of a firearm and to run away full-speed with their hands over their heads at the mention of a gun.  Shooter-response exercises in schools, while well-intentioned, exascerbate the situation by implanting the "fear seed" and fertilizing it without corresponding firearms safety training.  That gun-fearing continuous indoctrination at a young age within the schools can't help but make a growing population scared at the sight of an open-carried firearm.  The end result can be a school-fed population intent on disarming the citizenry and turning the USA more and more into an "It, The Government" nation ripe for exploitation by others. 

I'm not fearful as such when I see open-carry in my semi-rural world, but my radar goes on full power when I see firearms displayed by non-LEOs on the city streets of major metropolitan locales.  There's no trust in what these folk know or whether they have been adequately trained on firearms handling.  i don't want to see open-carry restricted, but at the same time having open-carry by untrained folk makes me quite wary.

[OV-1D]

  Very ,very few can shoot like Clint Eastwood like in that movie that screwball guy was holding that kid in front for protection in the quarry seen . " DO YOU FEEL LUCKY , PUNK , WELL DO YA ?  "

[Bigbird48]

@STEVEZ
I  agree with you on education of our Bill of Rights. They are scaring kids about guns and n ot educating them

[heyjoe]

what makes you think that people are any better trained in fire arm proper handling and safety in rural areas than those who carry in urban areas? as far as a i know people who get a carry permit in rural areas have no greater requirement for gun safety training or handling training than those in urban areas.i find your assumptions about those who carry in urban areas to be far different from my experience.   

Steve I disagree with your thoughts on open carry rural vs non rural  I see open carry very often by no uniforms in stores and out in the open in Phoenix very often. I never felt threatened , Its there constitutional right to carry anyway they want. The more people that do carry the more the skeptics and Libs will get use to it and not see it as a threat. I have my ccp so I can travel mines good in 36 or more states but anyone from any other state can come to Arizona and carry open or concealed with out any permits . The day should come were we can carry everywhere in all states with out being stopped or threatened by the uniformed guys.Google how many unarmed legal citizens are gunned down each year by police. Police shoot an avg of 20 unarmed people each year and about a 1000 people get shot by police each year.Allmost all public shooting are suicides , domestic disputes or gang on gang shooting.Very few people get shot just because someone pulled out a gun and sho0t them for no reason.So I feel more safe from the general public that open carrys then from the cop who approches me wants to know why I have a gun and ileagally violates my constitutiona rights

There's a perceptive difference on openly-displayed firearms by folk who have been well-trained on their use, either as kids taught very early to respect and safely use firarms or as young adults in a military/paramilitary environment where safety and proper use become second-nature.  At one time (the "draft" days and earlier) a large segment of the male population which did not grow up as firearms-trained kids (especially urban kids) got the latter experience, but that generation is now in its Social Security years and dwindling.  Today's population below-60-years-old is dramatically void of that firearms respect and understanding which many of us take for granted based on our life experience. 

We're in general agreement on Second Amendment rights.  However, having rights brings with it a responsibility to exercise those rights without doing harm, intentional or otherwise.  One cannot exercise anything responsibly without education/training on how to do it safely and efficiently.  That (to me, anyway) means all Constitutional rights require mandatory instruction on their application.  Without such instruction, the rights become twisted, abused, diluted or taken away.

It's hilarious (again, to me) that we can have mandatory public-funded sex education in schools, but no true civics education on our Constitution, especially on the Bill of Rights and why each Amendment exists.  Today's public (especially the urban folk) seems more worried about insufficient condom education than insufficient freedom-maintenance education.  Such civics-limited education (especially on the Second Amendment, as this forum is so oriented) seems that the wrong gun has become the focus of today's society.

Open-carry in many locales is often viewed as a fearful sight because we have let the general population develop a fear based on firearms-ignorance.  There is no required training or education as to why a citizen-militia (as opposed to a standing army) needs to exist to maintain freedoms.  Today's populace overall is believing less and less in the 'We, The People" concept, but more in "It, The Government" as the true ruler, and that's due to a national ignorance in civics. 

Things are getting worse, not better, in today's schools regarding the Second Amendment.  The response to public school shooting incidents has been the increasing school-conducted indoctrination of kids from a young age to be scared to death at the sight of a firearm and to run away full-speed with their hands over their heads at the mention of a gun.  Shooter-response exercises in schools, while well-intentioned, exascerbate the situation by implanting the "fear seed" and fertilizing it without corresponding firearms safety training.  That gun-fearing continuous indoctrination at a young age within the schools can't help but make a growing population scared at the sight of an open-carried firearm.  The end result can be a school-fed population intent on disarming the citizenry and turning the USA more and more into an "It, The Government" nation ripe for exploitation by others. 

I'm not fearful as such when I see open-carry in my semi-rural world, but my radar goes on full power when I see firearms displayed by non-LEOs on the city streets of major metropolitan locales.  There's no trust in what these folk know or whether they have been adequately trained on firearms handling.  i don't want to see open-carry restricted, but at the same time having open-carry by untrained folk makes me quite wary.

[Canoeal]

SteveZ I would almost agree your statement:
"That (to me, anyway) means all Constitutional rights require mandatory instruction on their application.  Without such instruction, the rights become twisted, abused, diluted or taken away." My problem is the limiting factor you are proposing. When you start putting requirements on what needs to be done to carry, you effectively limit the right to do so. Yes you could and should get training; but to say you must before you carry is  the same kind of violation of 2A as some of the left's bans.

Instead I would say "That at the time of purchase, the seller ( new sales) has a mandatory requirement to recommend the purchaser to get training, and a limited time instruction available as part of the gun purchase as well as a current copy of the state firearms laws..  Purchaser may  choose to sign off, with that being noted on the purchase and the purchaser assuming his own responsibility.. In such cases it may be noted, for the record and be available, in any shooting case. This is no infringement, just a subtle way to make one consider training.

[SteveZ-FL]

SteveZ I would almost agree your statement:
"That (to me, anyway) means all Constitutional rights require mandatory instruction on their application.  Without such instruction, the rights become twisted, abused, diluted or taken away." My problem is the limiting factor you are proposing. When you start putting requirements on what needs to be done to carry, you effectively limit the right to do so. Yes you could and should get training; but to say you must before you carry is  the same kind of violation of 2A as some of the left's bans.

Instead I would say "That at the time of purchase, the seller has a mandatory requirement to recommend the purchaser to get training, and a limited time instruction available as part of the gun purchase.  Purchaser may  choose to sign off, with that being noted on the purchase and the purchaser assuming his own responsibility.. In such cases it may be noted, for the record and be available, in any shooting case. This is no infringement, just a subtle way to make one consider training.

My point is....Today's youth (to me, most folk under 60, but especially school-age kids) have no comprehension about the Second or any of the other Amendments or the overall content of the Constitution itself.  That ignorance and the continued avoidance of public education into the why and how of the Constitution (especially the Second Amendment and why its the second and not the tenth in the Bill of Rights) is what keeps the arguments of gun control in its various manners not only alive, but becoming louder with each graduating public school class.  It's one thing to say something is a right, but another to keep that right.  With every more-civics-ignorant-than-the-last generation of public-educated kids, the closer the end of portions of our national civics foundation.  If kids keep getting "educated" about firearms the way they are now, the potential of a new Amendment occurring which repeals the Second Amendment in its current form is real indeed.  When the Founding Fathers wrote the first ten Amendments, they knew they could be changed or repealed, and our history has already seen that happened.

We are beyond the time for administrative rules covering time-of-purchase or other such bureaucratic measures.  Either American youth learn the why and how of the Second and other Amendments, or they as they become the majority will rewrite what they don't understand into what has become their academic and moral foundation thanks to civics-poor public education and a no-firearms media.  The broadcast and entertainment media routinely reinforces a non-firearms agenda, from open-carry onward.  Ignoring that there is already a no-firearms education process in effect which is geared for long-term changes and not countering that process with appropriate and effective civics training is just conceding the future.

I'm not for any more administrative rules, but instead for trying to fix the root cause of the gun control issue as it evolves with each passing public-educated generation.

[Ruger]

. . . . . . It's hilarious (again, to me) that we can have mandatory public-funded sex education in schools, but no true civics education on our Constitution, especially on the Bill of Rights and why each Amendment exists.  . . . . .

If you want a good education on the Bill of Rights, watch the Netflix show "Turn".  It is a great show, limited episodes, but shows how the British pissed off everyone by enforcing the opposite of almost all of our bill of rights . . . throwing you in jail if you spoke your mind at the local pub; searching your bags, carts, and homes just to exert authority;  forcing you to house their soldiers, feed them, wash their clothes, while they raped your daughter, conscripted your sons, sold your stuff, and threatened your life everyday; put you on a prison ship in the harbor with no length of sentence or real reason; and assumed you were guilty because you were a colonist.  Remember, the shot heard around the world was from defending the arsenal the British were coming to confiscate, at a time when firearms meant the difference between life and death on the frontier.  It was these reasons the founders wanted to identify the rights of the people under this new form of government.

We need to teach our youth that the Constitution grants powers to the branches of government, but identifies rights of the people, from whom the powers to government flowed. 

[WECSOG]

I'm always wary when I'm out in public, especially in an urban setting.
When I see an open carrier I think, "Cool; another person who is exercising his rights despite all the noise from those who wish to curtail them."
I by no means equate open carrying with implied threat. And I disagree about the urban vs. rural OC argument. Yes, there have been (and are) more open carriers in rural environs, but IMO that is just another symptom of the cultural differences between city folks vs. country folks.

Historically, open carry was seen as the accepted way for an honest person to carry a gun. Hiding one's gun was what criminals did. Most states saw OC as Constitutionally protected; that's why they didn't require a license. A lot of those states also didn't allow concealed carry, period. Then when they started allowing some concealed carry, all but one state (Vermont) required a license with an approval process, to control who could do so.

[WECSOG]

. . . . . . It's hilarious (again, to me) that we can have mandatory public-funded sex education in schools, but no true civics education on our Constitution, especially on the Bill of Rights and why each Amendment exists.  . . . . .

If you want a good education on the Bill of Rights, watch the Netflix show "Turn".  It is a great show, limited episodes, but shows how the British pissed off everyone by enforcing the opposite of almost all of our bill of rights . . . throwing you in jail if you spoke your mind at the local pub; searching your bags, carts, and homes just to exert authority;  forcing you to house their soldiers, feed them, wash their clothes, while they raped your daughter, conscripted your sons, sold your stuff, and threatened your life everyday; put you on a prison ship in the harbor with no length of sentence or real reason; and assumed you were guilty because you were a colonist.  Remember, the shot heard around the world was from defending the arsenal the British were coming to confiscate, at a time when firearms meant the difference between life and death on the frontier.  It was these reasons the founders wanted to identify the rights of the people under this new form of government.

We need to teach our youth that the Constitution grants powers to the branches of government, but identifies rights of the people, from whom the powers to government flowed.

+1000.

[RogueTS1]

Warty; that Clint Eastwood movie was the first Dirty Harry movie titled "Dirty Harry" and released in 1971. 

Problem with having requirements on a constitutionally protected right is that whomever makes up and enforces the qualifications also controls how and to whom said rights are given.

As the younger generation turns to "It" the government for protection and daily living aid those of a more Aristocratic nature may be in a position to assume their proper place once held in society again. If they want to be ruled over and taken care of they must pay the toll/price for such. They must assume their proper place in society; at the bottom of the ladder. They will be taken care of. They will be protected. They will no longer be Lady and Gentleman farmers. Once again they will be Serfs with all the privileges and benefits that such entails. I can live with that. Maybe things would be nicer for a change? 

[Warthog]

Yeah, I know Rogue, it just makes me wonder when  the youngsters will learn to think on their own.

[Ruger]

Yeah, I know Rogue, it just makes me wonder when  the youngsters will learn to think on their own.

I has been said that we trade youth for wisdom. 

We can not expect wisdom from someone living in their parent's basement.   

[WECSOG]

Yeah, I know Rogue, it just makes me wonder when  the youngsters will learn to think on their own.

Unfortunately, they've been taught not to.

[chutethemall]

Here in Florida, open carry is generally illegal, unless fishing, camping, target shooting, or lawfully hunting, or immediately going to or from such activities.
People who want to push these limitations, such as stopping to use a restroom or buy gas, interrupting their journey, can expect to be challenged by police and might also appear to be breaking the law in the eyes of the general public.

So I'm glad responsible activists are putting on their open-carry stunts while fishing in order to educate the police and the public, but I'm not going to join them. I'd vote to allow OC under the same rules as concealed carry, but I'm still keeping mine concealed.

My neighbors don't need to know, neither do random strangers in public.