O was in the Post office last year and was wearing shorts so I had my weapon in my “Jack Bauer” Bag, ( Sound better than pursue don’t you think? ) I spilled the bad and my weapon slid out and across the floor in front of about 5 people in line. I said, “Oops!” and picked it up and went on with my transaction. Not a ‘peep’ from anyone. We carry all the time, (the only time you will ever need it is the days you don’t have it with you) so we really have to th8nk about it when going to the court house or some such in big towns that have detectors.
Personal data point: Apparently all the Police Chiefs in the country hate and want to ban civilians with guns according to the press.
I make it a point to ask every police officer I can what they think. Near a 100 by now of all kinds, 100% prefer the citizens to be armed if they wish to be and do it legal. They are not the problem nor the source of 99.9% of the illegal weapons on the street.
But it is a telling counterpoint to the concealed carry protagonists that their hidden deterrent is only as good as the intelligence of potential assailants to reckon its possibility into their thinking.
And J. Average Criminal probably isn’t the most clear-headed, critical thinker.
Or maybe they are just gambling that their potential victims, if armed, don’t have the stones to pull the trigger.
Or perhaps they are thinking that if they bum-rush their potential victims, or strike from concealment themselves, any potentially armed victim won’t have time to bring a weapon into play.
From the perspective of a (former) concealed carry permit holder (actually, this pertains to anyone in a potentially dangerous area), the only answer to the above is to try to maintain situational awareness. You avoid blind corners, groups of people at night, you maintain a “scan” of the area, using eyes-and-ears, to attempt to identify dangerous terrain, and potential hazards, and then avoid them.
Not in Arkansas where the poster appears to reside. YMMV in other states. It is the responsibility of the citizen to know the regulations where they live and travel.
Open carry is perfectly legit in Washington, even in the cities. I do it myself regularly in Seattle. You referenced RCW 9.41.270, but that certainly does not prohibit peaceable open carry, as there is nothing about a handgun in a holster that inherently indicates a manner, circumstances, time and place that would warrant alarm for the safety of other persons. (The part about “intent to intimidate,” I think, indicates the intent of that law, and Washington courts have ruled along those lines. See the opinion in State v. Casad, for example.)
I’ve only ever had to talk to the police once when I was carrying openly - a couple of Seattle officers tried to tell me it was illegal “if someone became alarmed,” but I simply referred them to the statute and pointed out that it said “warrants alarm for the safety of other persons,” not “causes alarm in any person.” They didn’t argue with that and sent me on my way.
Generally, whether I CC or OC depends on the weather and/or what I’m wearing that day - I just go with whatever is more comfortable. I honestly don’t see it as a big deal, and FWIW, aside from the run-in with the cops (who were very polite, by the way; they just didn’t like open carry), I’ve never met anyone who was uneasy with me carrying openly.
I was under the impression that firearms were prohibited in post offices by federal law. 18 USC § 930 – unless a post office doesn’t count as a “federal facility”? I must confess my ignorance of that detail.
18 USC § 930(a) prohibits possession of firearms in federal facilities.
18 USC § 930(d)(3) provides an exception for “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes,” but lawful purposes is not defined and it is unclear whether carrying for self-defense is a lawful purpose under federal law. I’d rather not be a test case, so I leave the gun locked in the car when I must go inside the post office.
You got that right! It would appear that getting your mail from your PO Box or buying a book of stamps would certainly be a lawful purpose, but nobody wants to be a test case. :eek:
But on the otherhand, a holder of a FFL can mail firearms, so maybe it’s OK?
I think it might be a stretch to say that you were carrying the gun “incident to” the lawful purpose of buying stamps, unless there’s something about your post office you’re not telling us!
Speaking of Ohio, on my recent trip back home, I noticed that a lot of businesses were now posting signs on their doors stating that firearms were not allowed inside. Does anyone know what’s going on with this? Was there some recent change in firearms laws that has prompted such signage?
I noticed these on a business trip, and was a bit puzzled- A criminal would not pay attention to the sign, obviously, so why keep out the person who is abiding the law; had classes; etc.
I’m sure there is an explanation, but it seemed a bit odd.
Not to snark, but your puzzlement is exactly the same puzzlement gun rights advocates have about gun control laws - almost by definition, they will be ignored/broken by criminals.
I believe the rationale is, some people are uncomfortable with the idea that the people next to them in line at the supermarket might be packing heat, so the owners make a business decision to disallow guns in order to cater to & reassure these customers.
ETA: Reading the link, it appears it actually requires certain places (courthouses, police stations, schools etc.) to put up such signs, but doesn’t mention retail stores and other businesses, so my explanation doesn’t really apply.
Lott (the gun guy) and Levitt (the economist) have a significant disagreement on the use of the data. The problem with Lott’s work is that much of it depends on self-reporting, a well known issue in a lot of academic research.
I don’t think it’s odd to want to prohibit firearms in one’s own establishment. If I were a business owner, I wouldn’t want anyone walking in packing heat, regardless of whether they were “law abiding.” Same with my home. I wouldn’t let my best friend in with a gun for no good reason.
But the reason I ask is that I had not seen these signs on previous trips. That’s why I wondered about a recent change in the law.
Isn’t that itself irrational, i.e., you have no good reason for preventing it? I suppose it’s okay (but odd) if you come back and say, “yeah, it’s irrational, but that’s just how I feel without any good reason.” But… you yourself are usally a pretty rational poster, so I’m curious whether you actually do have a rational reason for such a position.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, so I’m not going to get into it, save that I believe that there’s nothing irrational about not wanting to be around people who might be hiding firearms in their clothing, no matter how “law abiding” they think they are.
There is nothing irrational about that belief - true.
The irrationality arises when you consider who is likely to obey such a rule: a person who has taken the trouble to secure proper legal permission to carry a concealed handgun, or a person who illegally carries a handgun in violation of the law.
The sign, in other words, will have a great deal of effect in removing armed “law abiding” citizens from the premises, and comparatively lesser effect in removing armed criminals. The net effect does not seem positive, and the choice to use the sign in light of that result thus seems irrational.
Hmm.
I routinely carry hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars worth of merchandise to my local USPS branch.
I wonder if open carry would be justified in such circumstances.
I would say mailing firearms is without a doubt a lawful purpose, since the firearm is an integral part of the act–ie to mail a firearm you must take it inside the post office.
On the other hand, nothing about buying stamps requires a firearm.
There is a similar controversy about carrying in schools in Pennsylvania. The law prohibits firearms in school except for lawful purposes. If there were a sporting event involving firearms occuring participants could bring in firearms, or if one were teaching a hunter safety class it could be argued that firearms are an integral part of the class. On the other hand, whether carrying a concealed firearm in a school in case you have to defend yourself is not such a clear case, and would need to be clarified by the legislature or ruled on by the courts.
) I spilled the bad and my weapon slid out and across the floor in front of about 5 people in line. I said, “Oops!” and picked it up and went on with my transaction. Not a ‘peep’ from anyone. We carry all the time, (the only time you will ever need it is the days you don’t have it with you) so we really have to th8nk about it when going to the court house or some such in big towns that have detectors.
