[VWpilot]

At Xring, there is at least one long term employee who works there that is very anti OC. He also happens to be a professional concealed carry instructor. If you mention OC he starts running down the anti-list.

True, the guy's a real flake, I'd never recommend him to anyone for a firearms class. I always direct folks to John Morgan, great guy, excellent instructor.

I've never had a bad experience at X Ring, but they have been rationing ammo for awhile now, since January of this year. And like Miller's, X Ring price-gouged their ammo to ridiculously high prices whenever they could based on demand. I'll never buy ammo there.

I still have a good relationship with Patriot, and recommend them often. I had fun working there, it was a great experience, just wish it lasted longer.

Just my .02 here. Stay safe ~ Rob.

[Condition1]

X-Ring is the place I recommend around this area, never had problems and was always treated well.

[Boots]

... At Xring, there is at least one long term employee who works there that is very anti OC. He also happens to be a professional concealed carry instructor. If you mention OC he starts running down the anti-list. ....

Does he CC while working in the store... or does he OC?

[KevXD45]

Chip: I would probably react exactly the same way - much as I have in regard to Steve's Liquors. I can't help but wonder if after you left, the other employees might've had a "chat" with the guy you talked to.

Not only does it seem odd for such a thing to happen in a gun store - but even moreso considering that all the employees there OC. At least every time I've been there they have been.

[scampbell3]

This thread has brought out an interesting topic. Now this just maybe my own observation. One of the intentions of Open Carry is to 'normalize' the view of guns and gun carry to the overall public. What I have been noticing for awhile, and this can been seen on the OpenCarry.org, PAFOA.org, and PaOpencarry.org site are threads on the OC vs. CC debate. If you read these threads, they can, and do get very heated. Some of the strongest opposition to OC seems (to me) to come from 'gun rights supporters' (I did not use the term 2A supporters, I will explain)

The gun community is deeply divided on this subject, with OC supporters in the minority (but our numbers are growing) If you take some time to read the debate threads, you will see what I consider to be a deeply flawed view of the 2A with those who strongly oppose OC. I am not saying that those who oppose OC are not 2a supporters, but rather how they blur the distinction between the true meaning of the 2A, and a government privilege.

Here is a typical statement from a anti-OC individual. "If you want to carry a gun for self defense you should get a permit and conceal it, OC will get you into trouble" (this btw is a direct quote to me from a firearms instructor when I was going through my UTAH CCW class in PA.) I am sure that there are others on here that have heard the same thing in the past. Lets look at the logic behind this statement.

1. He obviously supports the 2A, or he would not be a firearms instructor.
2. He obviously supports lawful self defense and values it purpose for the individual.
3. He obviously supports the 2A "...to keep (own)...arms

This is where the logic gets blurred on the second part "...to bear arms...". I read his logic as this..."if you want to carry a gun for self defense you should get the permission of the government before you exercise your right" Many pro-gun people have been indoctrinated to believe that the granted privilege is part of an individuals 2A right. When in fact the two can not be any farther apart from each other.

Now, I can already hear the replies to this already, but please keep in mind this is a basic overview, and not a detailed essay. If we take the logic behind some of the pro-gun/anti-OC comments, then the 2A should read as "...to keep and bear arms hidden from sight shall not be infringed" or "...to keep and bear arms hidden from sight with approval from government shall not be infringed" Now this would make the instructor's statement more logical. If you read the second revision, can you spot the problem? How can a granted privileged be protected from infringement from the very entity that grants it?

In simpler terms, this logic says. the 2A guarantees your rights, but ask permission first before to exercise the "bear arms" part of the 2A. What is the point of having 1/2 a right and not the whole right? This is what it all boils down to in the end.

IMO, Open Carry is the intent and true purpose and representation of the 2A. The Constitution and its amendments list our inalienable rights, and is meant to protect them FROM government, it does not mean these rights are GIVEN to us from government.
Concealed carry is not a right but rather a privilege that is bestowed onto the people by government, provided you jump through the hoops, spend enough money, have your privacy invaded, and meet a list of requirements.

If we follow this prevalent logic a little farther, what about someone who fails to meet the arbitrary requirements or fills out the application with a statement the judge does not like for CC (but can still purchase firearms legally) or is simply turned down in a shall issue system. Does this mean they can only have 1/2 of their protect rights? In states such as NJ, NY, MD IL, and such have in essence have told their residence, you have no 2A rights. or only 1/2 of the 2A rights.

We have a lot of obstacles to overcome not only from anti-gun groups, but also from within pro-gun circles as well. It is all about education, and the ever increasing numbers in the Open Carry movement are proving that the education is working. In order to further the OC movement we need to understand those who may be pro-gun, but oppose OC and see the flaw in the logic.

I could go on, but this post is already too long. I have attached a link to an essay that was posted on USAcarry.org. It is simply titled "The Open Carry Argument". I found this to be one of the better articles on open carry. It has some hyperlinks in it that are worth taking time to go to and read.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-car ... ument.html

I have rambled enough....

Chip

[dave_in_delaware]

Thank you, Chip, for your "rambling" because it was awesome and spot-on, and something that needed to be stated.

I do find it ironic that a judge AND the State found me "undeserving" (for lack of a better term) to carry a concealed firearm, but yet I'm still able to carry openly, and purchase firearms, and possess firearms, and use firearms, and even defend my life with them recently without getting into trouble.

What's wrong with this State/Country?

[photog]

Thank you, Chip, for your "rambling" because it was awesome and spot-on, and something that needed to be stated.

I do find it ironic that a judge AND the State found me "undeserving" (for lack of a better term) to carry a concealed firearm, but yet I'm still able to carry openly, and purchase firearms, and possess firearms, and use firearms, and even defend my life with them recently without getting into trouble.

What's wrong with this State/Country?

IMHO Dave, people are too worked up focusing on the small differences in choices to focus on the big objective.
OC/CC.. I believe that you should do what serves you best, and what is most comforable for your circunstances. I tried carrying my "friend" IWB, that lasted about 2 minutes.

For some who claim to be pro-gun to ridicule another pro-gun supporter is extremely counter-productive. This kind of in-fighting hurts our collective cause almost as bad as the anti-gun crowd.

CHIP FOR GOVERNOR!!!!

[VWpilot]

Now, I can already hear the replies to this already, but please keep in mind this is a basic overview, and not a detailed essay. If we take the logic behind some of the pro-gun/anti-OC comments, then the 2A should read as "...to keep and bear arms hidden from sight shall not be infringed" or "...to keep and bear arms hidden from sight with approval from government shall not be infringed" Now this would make the instructor's statement more logical. If you read the second revision, can you spot the problem? How can a granted privileged be protected from infringement from the very entity that grants it?

In simpler terms, this logic says. the 2A guarantees your rights, but ask permission first before to exercise the "bear arms" part of the 2A. What is the point of having 1/2 a right and not the whole right? This is what it all boils down to in the end.

IMO, Open Carry is the intent and true purpose and representation of the 2A. The Constitution and its amendments list our inalienable rights, and is meant to protect them FROM government, it does not mean these rights are GIVEN to us from government.
Concealed carry is not a right but rather a privilege that is bestowed onto the people by government, provided you jump through the hoops, spend enough money, have your privacy invaded, and meet a list of requirements.

If we follow this prevalent logic a little farther, what about someone who fails to meet the arbitrary requirements or fills out the application with a statement the judge does not like for CC (but can still purchase firearms legally) or is simply turned down in a shall issue system. Does this mean they can only have 1/2 of their protect rights? In states such as NJ, NY, MD IL, and such have in essence have told their residence, you have no 2A rights. or only 1/2 of the 2A rights.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-car ... ument.html

I have rambled enough....

Chip

This is VERY well written Chip. Excellent points.

For myself, I don't OC much, but I will always support those who do, in every manner I can. Gun owners need to unite, whether they are pro-OC or pro-CC, we are on the same team, simple as that.

[Tony T]

Not a hint of rambling. I couldn't agree more. Particularly with the following statement,

IMO, Open Carry is the intent and true purpose and representation of the 2A. The Constitution and its amendments list our inalienable rights, and is meant to protect them FROM government, it does not mean these rights are GIVEN to us from government.
Concealed carry is not a right but rather a privilege that is bestowed onto the people by government, provided you jump through the hoops, spend enough money, have your privacy invaded, and meet a list of requirements.

Although I did take the CC training, I haven't applied for a permit because I prefer to open carry. I prefer to exercise a right without having to "apply". Particularly because I feel Delaware's requirements are excessive.

All you should have to do is apply to the court and get fingerprinted/investigated by the DSP. You shouldn't have to tell the world where you live, and that you own a firearm, as a stipulation. You shouldn't have to supply photo's, they should come from the identification unit as you get printed. The permit should also be good for at least 4 to 5 years.

Suppose a woman finaly breaks free of an abusive spouse, and decides to obtain a CC permit. To get one she must publicize her new address and that she will be armed. It's excessive. There are too many hoops they hope you won't jump through or can't afford to.

[George]

the right un-infringed is "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"
That is open or concealed, without having to ask permission at all!
Vermont and Alaska have the right idea