VA APS-ers: Is the Potomac running red with the blood of the innocent yet?

[Matthew Carberry]

Unless you mean "40 years to fix" everywhere else... yeah.

But in California, the legislature is now working to BAN OC, specifically because of the OC demonstrations. And in California, they're unloaded by law already. Although that may be what the OC protesters there want. If OC is banned in CA, CA may have a really hard time under Heller and McDonald/2A incorporation... and the third case working it's way up that I forget the name of right now, that has a lot more to do with the "bearing" part of the 2A.

And judging, at least anecdotally from the statements of anti's... they're very afraid the OC protests are working and "Getting everyone desensitized to having guns on everyone everywhere..."

The upcoming DC case which may make some form of lawful carry mandatory (in every state with McDonald incorp) is either Palmer or Parker.  Whichever one wasn't a co-plaintiff with Heller.

We should get those rulings about the same time.

[280plus]

I'd like someone here to define the word "loaded". Are we talking full mag inserted with no round in the chamber or full mag inserted with a round in the chamber and safety on? Just curious. I have no real compunction to lean either way in this discussion. I do agree I'd probably have shown up with my sidearm only because I don't believe I'd feel like lugging a rifle around all day.

If Rev wanted to let me borrow his Uzi to dangle off a lanyard around my neck I'd probably be ok with that.   

[vaskidmark]

Either one.

stay safe.

skidmark

[280plus]

Hmph, tough call.

[CNYCacher]

Please just accept the fact that loaded or unloaded, the possibility exists for a negative spin by the various news media.

Loaded: You are paranoid and you don't trust your fellow gun owners.
Unloaded: You are irresponsible and don't trust yourself.

Personally, I would rather see all unholstered guns unloaded.  This is consistent with all manner of gun-related events.  Behind the firing line at the range, floor of a gun show, etc.


I blame page 2 of this thread on fistful

[280plus]

Personally, I would rather see all unholstered guns unloaded.  This is consistent with all manner of gun-related events.  Behind the firing line at the range, floor of a gun show, etc.

Kind of the way I'm thinking too. I was wondering if holstered sidearms were also kept unloaded at this event. That I see no reason for.

[mellestad]

But I hope you do get the point.  I was not just taking a swipe at you.  The right to bear arms is like the right to vote, or to ride anywhere on the bus you want to.  Our right to bear is currently being infringed in most parts of the country, in various ways.  There's something very wrong when you're telling people not to be active in pursuing basic human rights. 

No, I get that.

Personally, I would rather see all unholstered guns unloaded.  This is consistent with all manner of gun-related events.  Behind the firing line at the range, floor of a gun show, etc.

That was my only point really, but I get derailed easily.

[Leatherneck]

I'm undecided about the wisdom of the in-your-face OC movement. Sunday coming home from the river, I stopped at a Sheetz (mega-minimart) at Rtes 301 and 3, and noticed a guy carrying a Glock in a normal holster on his belt. Thought about striking up a conversation, but I was in a hurry and went about my business selecting salted peanuts and getting on the road again. In line, I watched two youngish women whispering and one pointed to his gun. I watched them as they left ; sure enough, they got into a decrepit minivan from MD.

My point? OC, if noticed by the sheep at all, alarms them. They really don't understand that it's completely legal. Nor do they probably even know that the Second Amendment exists. This being rural Virginia, the 911 dispatcher, or the responding officer, would probably strongly assured them that the man's behavior was completely legal.

How do you think they would respond to some politician (MD or US) who proposed to "remove the threat to public safety caused by reckless VA rednecks who open carry weapons of mass destruction like a Glock!?

Thus my ambivalence. I prefer concealed, thanks.

TC

[vaskidmark]

I'm undecided about the wisdom of the in-your-face OC movement. Sunday coming home from the river, I stopped at a Sheetz (mega-minimart) at Rtes 301 and 3, and noticed a guy carrying a Glock in a normal holster on his belt. Thought about striking up a conversation, but I was in a hurry and went about my business selecting salted peanuts and getting on the road again. In line, I watched two youngish women whispering and one pointed to his gun. I watched them as they left ; sure enough, they got into a decrepit minivan from MD.

My point? OC, if noticed by the sheep at all, alarms them. They really don't understand that it's completely legal. Nor do they probably even know that the Second Amendment exists. This being rural Virginia, the 911 dispatcher, or the responding officer, would probably strongly assured them that the man's behavior was completely legal.

How do you think they would respond to some politician (MD or US) who proposed to "remove the threat to public safety caused by reckless VA rednecks who open carry weapons of mass destruction like a Glock!?

Thus my ambivalence. I prefer concealed, thanks.

TC

Here we go again.

You see the sheep becoming skittish and say you prefer to carry discreetly.  Then you add in comments about some theoretical politician saying "Save the sheep!" and ask how "the sheep" would react.  I don't hear ambivilance - I hear opposition.

In Virginia the default carry option is open carry - discreet carry is an allowed violation of the law if one has bothered to purchase a permit.  And for those between 18 and 21 years old, the option to purchase a permit does not exist.

Oh, BTW.  Your description of the non-event does not suggest to me that the two young things from the van with Maryland plates were "alarmed".  They did notice, but could thing 1 have been saying to thing 2 something along the lines of "See the guy wearing the tupperware in the Fobus holster?  He'd be a whole lot more desirable if he was carrying a tricked-out 1911 in a basketweave leather holster"?  How is that scenario any less possible than yours suggesting panic and fear?

In closing - How would you please suggest conveying the message to the general public that OC in Virginia is legal, without having the person actually OC?

stay safe.

skidmark

[Leatherneck]

Jesus.

Here we go again.

I don't recall having expressed my views before, although I've certainly read all the pro/con views around the various forums and discussion sites, and had several conversations with adults in Virginia that are aware of the issue.

I hear opposition

Seek medical attention. There are hearing aids. My very first sentence:

I'm undecided about the wisdom of the in-your-face OC movement.

Oh, BTW.  Your description of the non-event does not suggest to me that the two young things from the van with Maryland plates were "alarmed".  They did notice, but could thing 1 have been saying to thing 2 something along the lines of "See the guy wearing the tupperware in the Fobus holster?  He'd be a whole lot more desirable if he was carrying a tricked-out 1911 in a basketweave leather holster"?  How is that scenario any less possible than yours suggesting panic and fear?

All my life I've tried hard to avoid assuming conditions I didn't witness and extrapolating from there. How about you?

In closing - How would you please suggest conveying the message to the general public that OC in Virginia is legal, without having the person actually OC?

I don't claim to know the best answer to that. I'm also not sure I was ever assigned that particular mission.

TC

[Strings]

I don't claim to know the best answer to that. I'm also not sure I was ever assigned that particular mission.

[flippant attitude]

Ok...

Leatherneck, I want you to figure out the best way of conveying the message to the general public that OC in Virginia is legal, without having the person actually OC.

Since (IIRC) you work for the government, and I as a citizen am (theoretically) the government's boss, that gives me the authority to assign this mission.

What do ya think: a week be enough time for a preliminary report?

[/flippant attitude]



Sorry... some of y'all have been getting too serious. Nothing against you, Leatherneck: your quoted comment sparked my snark is all.

[Matthew Carberry]

For myself...

If you want to do something that is legal where you are, just do it don't make a big deal about it.  There's a difference between wearing a gun and going about your normal business and having mass protests to declare you are able to do a legal thing.

It's legal, it isn't going to get "more legal-er".  The risk of making it a big deal is that you might lose it if enough PSH arises.

I can see protesting with OC if it is actively at political risk anyway and you want to show it's safe; or if you are trying to get/not lose a CC option as well; or you are at a single-purpose protest for one or another other gun right (so the OC is just one of many).

Where I see it as, at best, a distraction, is when you are protesting a non-associated issue.  For instance, I know health care is bad, but it doesn't directly impact gun rights in any way and explaining the overarching similarity of statism to someone not really interested isn't going to effectively happen. 

The press certainly isn't going to report the nuance, just the "people with guns at a health care rally",  which will probably seem out of place or unnecessary to most uninvolved viewers, particularly if you are in a state where gun rights are more or less solid and safe in the immediate future.

Where's the upside?

They won't clearly see the connection and in any event while they're distracted by your gun they aren't getting your on-point message about the other topic, the one actually being protested about.