There are compelling reasons on both sides of the open/concealed debate. As long as one side doesn't hamper the ability of the other to do as they wish with their protective firearm, I am fine with it.

Some good replies. I stand by my opinion if people keep causing concern and/or fear be it rational or not it will lead to more businesses posting and legislation. What do you think WalMart will do if they field people complaining about open carry? It doesn’t take much creative thinking to expect there will be a sign banning guns if it’s disturbing their income. Do you really believe that will not be the case?

I live in a town where atvs/sleds/horses in town are tolerated. I think that’s pretty sweet. But when I see guys with race exhausts shooting down main street I know their pushing the limits of tolerance and that creates a threat to my freedoms.

OC in Minnesota is not constitutionally guaranteed and as such is a right that can be abrogated by a change in the legislative winds. The fact that few if any on this forum agree with that is beside the point because our job title doesn't include the word "judge." At this juncture, a change for the worse in the carry law appears unlikely. I would hope it stays that way.

Consider the parallels however:

* The recent closure of vast swaths of public land in Minnesota to ATVs. Done in the name of water quality and soil conservation, the real reason was that the hikers, adjacent landowners, xc skiers, the DNR, the iron range ER docs, and the traditional (on foot) hunters were fed up with the noise, injuries, and trail damage.

* The new legislation restricting personal watercraft that was enacted a few short years after these craft became popular, the reason being that too many operators had the attitude that "it's a public lake" and "the right of way rules let me do xxx if I want to."

* In Florida, a requirement to conceal was passed during the legislative session following the adoption of Florida's landmark carry permit legislation, because widespread open carry was perceived as disruptive by the public at large.

No doubt there are others.

Open carry in places like, say, the Edina Byerly's or the skyways in St. Paul fires up the anti-gun base and sets them about writing editorials, calling their representatives, senators, and congresscritters, and making donations to the Brady campaign.

Now you've done it, thrown some true life examples out there.

But those are not valid examples, nothing I do as a permit holder would ever get the Minnesota permit law opened up, reviewed and changed, never happen...........

What this is crazy talk you are so naive! Maybe one of the soccer mom's at Byerly's will ask what load you think has the best stopping power in your 44 on your hip. Ever think of that, bet you didnt.

Site owner hat on:
Chill. Argue your position; attack other positions, if you like. Don't attack other people. You've got something to contribute here; it'd be a shame if you got yourself locked out for not following the rules.
Site owner hat off:
This isn't a new issue here. It's fine to discuss it, honest, but if you think that you've got new insights that others haven't run into before, you're not overly likely to be right, all in all.

Hmmm, what was it the professor said?

Oh yes, now I remember! "Rule #1. No one should know you are carrying. No one."

I can tell this is going to be wayyy too subtle for some folks, but,,,,

I view open carry/concealed carry as one of those polarizing issues like:Religion, Politics, Abortion, etc. People tend to have their opinion on the subject and it is VERY unlikely you will change someone's opinion on the matter. Possibly, but unlikely. I pretty much always conceal but I do believe there are situations as have already been pointed out where it would serve as a deterrent simply because it's just not worth it for a perp to mess with you. There are so many easier/softer targets out there. To me, in general, if a perp is going to hassle someone he's obviously going to avoid the one who he can see has the means to kill him. There are exceptions but in general I think this is true. As with everything, I think there is a time and a place.

Carbide Insert: Excellent post!

OP: Welcome!

Sir, it was tong-in-cheek to Mostly Harmless. I was not attacking anyone. I apologize if one of my comments appeared inappropriate. I meant no disrespect.

I don’t get the “new insights” comment but hey that’s cool whatever. If you feel you need to ban me from the board that’s ok too, it’s your house.

I pro carry either ccw/oc but it’s all in the audience, IE where appropriate. I just don’t want to have to revert back to the dark years where no one could carry. That’s how I feel Sir.

"New-Insights" means you are stirring a sh*tpot that has boiled over numerous times... Some take a few min searching "open carry" and you will see that. It's not new ground.

Roger that, I will stand down. I like hearing lots of opinions.

Like I said I have been lurking here reading this stuff for a while, for some reason I felt compelled to jump into the fray. It’s a good forum, don’t need to raise everyone’s blood pressure more. I made my point.

(chuckling)

If you ever want to see two permit holders going at it, just drop the words "open carry" and watch the fun.

Few topics get things more riled up.

Just warn us, so we can get the lawnchairs and popcorn poppers out of storage.

-Mark

Well done...

Just don't go starting posts about: 9mm vs. .40 cal vs. .45, Carrying +1 or Unchambered, Glock vs. 1911, and Joe Penaz, and you might get out alive.

ROTFL!

I'm not going there on any of those. Flak jacket is in the shop.

-mark

Cool.This is a subject that's been discussed overandoverandover again here. It's possible that you've got a new take on it that hasn't been put forward before hereabouts, but that's not the way to bet.True. I don't see the need; if I did, I would.Well, it wasn't "no one." Some of us had carry permits even 'way back then -- like, say, me.